He could, sure. It's probably also near even, but if I had to choose, I'd prefer e5 to f3.
Scandinavian "Declined" 2.e5
@Pacifique There is nothing wrong with being a purist. Take Aronian and Kramnik for example. Not everybody is comfortable following the lead of Carlsen - and note that Nakamura is leaning away from the Carlsen style towards Aronian.
I have no probems with purists until they dont claim their approach the only rigth way with arrogant attitude towards "non-purists". The funniest thing with such a purists is that they usually are unable to back up their claims with analysis to demonstrate how to exploit "advantage" they have claimed (this thread is a good example of it as none of my opponents were able to demonstrate black`s advantage after 1.e4 d5 2.e5 c5 3.Bb5+). Berliner`s "The System" is the most illustrative example of such a thinking - author makes some obviously absurd claims with some negligent analysis (some of his claims he does not bother to back up at all).
Even Kramnik occasionally employs openings he don`t think the best like KID and Robatsch (playing "hope chess", according to FirebrandX definition). Speaking on Nakamura - he still plays "weak" (according to purists) opening moves like 1.g3, Evans gambit, 1.e4 e6 2.f4 and also plays Dutch even in the highest level (see his game vs Katjakin in Tata Steel this year).
Melvin,
A little bit of a weird position and not obvious at first glance what the heck is going on. Of course if this does not work for Black he can always try
4. ....Bd7
If people are upset with others please either take it to the board or private chats and not post attacks and snipes at eachother on here
This move (2. e5?) is sort of like the equivalent of the Bowlder attack (2. Bc4?) vs. the Sicilian, it's a patzer mistake that you see so often that you want to blow your brains out. I see 2. Bc4 against my Sicilian as often as I do 2. Nf3.
If you absolutely knew that your opponent would play 1.e4 and 2.Bc4, and you were not allowed to play 1...b5 or 1...d5, then I think the best move would be 1...c6.
The move 1. e4 d5 2. e5 breaks opening principles but it does not lose.
White can still outplay the black side and maybe win.
The best response for Black is 1. e4 d5 2. e5 c5 and already Black has more than his share of the center.
just found this post/forum and haven't had time to read all the comments, though i will b/c i play the center-counter quite often right now. anyways, after 2. e5 i know both c5 and Bf5 (getting outside the chain) are good but have been wondering is there much difference in the order? when i first discovered it was somewhat dubious for white i found it is because it is an advanced french and as black i have solved the "problem" bishop difficulties. my questions are:
1. I have been playing Bf5 before c5 (on move 2), does this transposition negatively affect black's position if this is the set up chosen (black's first four moves in order, d5, Bf5, e6, c5)?
2. Should i study the advanced french from black's POV? (i would mainly be using videos on this site, i have no in-depth books about the french defense)
i agree with some early comments in this thread that 2. e5 from white doesn't pose many problems and i've felt that for black, the developement comes quite naturally, but i have been getting more interested in actually "preparing" a line then just make some good developing moves. perhaps answers to question 2 will help this, or any PGNs/playernames from a master level game where 2.e5 was played. thank you, i am sure some of these things were covered here already, but a quick recap would be appreciated before i dive in to 9 pages of comments (it's 3AM right now, )
1. e4 d5 2. e5 c5 is best. The main reason is now if White plays
Nf3 it can be pinned by Bb4.
Another reason 1. e4 d5 2. e5 c5 is best is that it gives Black a good center.
I would imagine so. Protected passed pawn on move 3? Never heard of anybody playing 3.c4. Of course, 1.e4 d5 2.e5 is stupid in the first place. Black can play 2...c5 (as mentioned above) or 2...Bf5, and in both cases, he'll end up with a tempo-up Caro-Kann. Normally, you play ...c6 and ...c5 in order to get the Bishop out, or else, if you want to play ...c5 in one shot, you play ...e6 and you are in the French, with the Bishop inside the pawn chain.
Therefore, by White playing the horrible move 2.e5, he's giving Black his cake and letting him eat it too. Caro-Kann Structure at a French pace!
2.e5 seems to be very correct and solid to compare with BDG (transposing after 1.e4 d5 2.d4). But chess statistics fanatics will disagree of course as BDG has higher results.
Statistics aren't everything but they are a piece of evidence that cannot be easily dismissed. That an unsound gambit performs better than 2.e5 should be a red flag that something might be wrong with it.
...
I think Black has good chances of defending and getting a long term advantage against either but at the very least, BDG has a much more favorable Caltrop coefficient for White--he has not yet lost his first move initiative and he has semi open files for his rooks, which will present problems for Black to have to work out OTB. 2.e5 loses the iniative and has far less tactical chances.
...
But yes a good player could pick up either, learn the ins-and-outs, learn the traps further down the line, get really comfortable with it and get good results. 2.e5 is not bad, really. As others have said it's just not critical.
Sorry, but the BDG loses if White knows what he is doing.
On the other hand 2. e5 gives Black instant equality and thus is a bad move. It is playable but Black has very slightly the better game but even so-- it is a draw with best play.
It violates the principal of not moving a pawn twice in the opening unless you have good reason [ such as attacking a piece]
Chess statistics on these two moves mean almost nothing as generally the moves are played by fairly low rated players against other fairly low rated players.
Sorry, but the BDG loses if White knows what he is doing.
[snip]
I don't understand this part of your comment.
Sorry you are correct I wrote it wrong. I should have written"
"Sorry, but the BDG loses is BLACK knows what he is doing."
Sorry you are correct I wrote it wrong. I should have written"
"Sorry, but the BDG loses is BLACK knows what he is doing."
But its wonderful, that most black players dont know what they are doing versus the mighty BDG.
And even with perfect play from black the position is =+ maximum...stay with your Ponziani Opening...you are a great expert in this opening and i really enjoy your analysis in this variation, but dont judge about a gambit you dont understand.
Can white decline the scandinanvian with 2.f3?