Is there a secret to this opening, or is it just terrible?

This seems to get played fairly often against me. I find it to be a terrible opening and genrally people who are playing it tend to lose the game. So my question is, as so many seem to play it, are they copying from some amazing opening trap that I can't see, or is it simply terrible?

It's not terrible, it's just not as active as the 3...Qa5 line.  After 4.d4 White has a space advantage at no cost.  There's still a game to be won, though.  Black's position is not much worse than it is here:

So to answer your question, no.

But that's my point, if white has a space advantage at no cost, doesn't that make the opening terrible? Considering that Black is always playing catchup and trying to regain a tempo, they have now put themselves in a position where they are not just behind in tempo, but in space as well. That seems like quite a handicap considering it was completely unneccesary and unforced.

Disgruntled_Sheep wrote:

This seems to get played fairly often against me. I find it to be a terrible opening and genrally people who are playing it tend to lose the game. So my question is, as so many seem to play it, are they copying from some amazing opening trap that I can't see, or is it simply terrible?

______________________________________________________________________________________

The basic reasoning behind Black's 1...d5 is to make an asymmetric pawn structure at the cost of a temporary tempo gain for White. Notice that the resulting pawn structure after 3...Qd8 gives White a 4 vs. 3 pawn majority on the Q-side and a 4 vs. 3 pawn majority on the K-side for Black. Each side gets a half-open file, Black the Q file, White the K file.

It's clearly not terrible, Michael Adams (2700+) played it numerous occasions, and at least twice he drew against other 2700's with it.

Geez dude...

Adams is not the only top GM to play this, and anyway. I have no intention of copying him, I dont play this as Black.

You  said it's a terrible move for Black. I say you are dead wrong. Many players, stronger than me and you together say you are wrong. Their opinion counts for more than yours.

Maybe Qd8 is slow,or less ambitious, or even slightly inferior.

But to call it "terrible" or "unsound" just doesnt make sense. Qc6 would be "terrible"

And do you think Adams sits accross the table from Svidler thinking he's gonna "fool" him with an inferior Qd8 on move 3?  Especially after he drew with Leko shortly before using the same move, of which game I am certain Svidler was aware?

No Secret at All.

Just one of many lines in the Center Counter (Scandinavian Defense).

@Ponz111 (David Taylor) used the Center Counter as his workhorse opening to win the U.S. Correspondence Chess Championship a number of years ago.

Compare, Center-Counter Uprising, by Alex Dunne and David Taylor, (1990).  Although that pamphlet focused on the Mieses Variation, 3)...Qa5

There are a boatload of fairly recent books on this opening...

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_16?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=scandinavian+defense+chess&sprefix=scandinavian+def%2Cstripbooks%2C0

It looks terrible to me. Giving up a tempo for no better reason than to make the position asymetrical (and, I suppose, gaining a half open file for the queen and creating a half open file leading to the enemy king) seems like so poor an exchange that terrible is a reasonable assessment.

As it arises in top level play and a good correspondence chess player adopted it I guess it must be the case that the positional aspects balance (or outweigh) the loss of time in the medium or long term.  But that is for top flight and very deeply researched play. I can't take advantage of those positional advantages because I am not Adams and I don't have a correspondence chess player's dedication. But I do know what the tempo gives me and I will have, at the least, an initiative against players at or not far above my own standard who adopt this.

So I'd say that it is a terrible move for any poor or average player.

I think Adams only played it in rapid tournaments.

No, there is a cost: the c3 knight is misplaced because white would like to have a pawn either on c4, gaining space, or on c3 supporting his most advanced pawn.

For example if black's bishop goes to pin or exchange for the knight on f3 black can easily mount some pressure against d4 even thanks to the semiopen file.

Scandinavian is a decent opening, don't underestimate it only because it violates opening principles.

I love your videos on youtube by the way, you're really good at explaining stuff.

Ah yes, the argument that the Nc3 is misplaced.  It is a developed piece though.  The longer White keeps an activity advantage, the less likely it is for Black to acheive an early break (..e5 or ..c5) so by the time White needs to move the QN again he should have acheived a more active position than his opponent, if that makes any sense.  Thanks for watching my videos.

Also someone said 3...Qe5+ does not serve a purpose.  I disagree, the purpose is to force White to deploy a minor piece to e2, and after the Q returns to c7 (a square it goes to in the normal lines) point at the piece on e2 as a wasted half-tempo once it moves again.  I wouldn't say it's better or worse than 3...Qd8.  The plans for both sides are very similar in both cases.

It IS worse than Qa5/Qd6, but it is not refuted.

I know he has a space advantage, and an extra move, but what is he going to DO with that???

It is very hard to do anything, there aren't any targets in Blacks position to attack, and if you continue routine development, Black will catch up and he will be fine.

I dont understand why the person would do that, but I think its terrible

All depends on what you mean by "terrible."  But no, I would not classify it as terrible...just not terribly ambitious.

It's not terrible the idea is to play hyper modern and play against the pawn. An idea is g6 Bg7 Nh6-f5 with pressure

Enjoying reading the responses, thanks all!

I guess "terrible" may not be the right word, however I think that johnyoudell hit the nail on the head with "So I'd say that it is a terrible move for any poor or average player." 

True players like Adams may have played this, I am a little concerned that the "best" hoped for outcome is a draw though. At my level, I can say that the opening certainly seems terrible as it apparently requires a lot of high end theory in order to secure the prize of "draw."

The question has certainly brought about some nice points to consider and I'm glad that there is actually a bit of reason behind this opening. I have been feeling crazy whenever someone played it. Has anyone (themselves not a known GM game) successfuly won a game playing this opening? I'd be interested to see how you did it.

Has anyone (themselves not a known GM game) successfuly won a game playing this opening?  Yes

I'd be interested to see how you did it.

The following http://www.chessbites.com/ will give you lots of examples of the winning technique for both Black and White. Once you are at the website click on the red explore button

Here's my post on the same opening line, 4 months ago.  Some more good info in the comments.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/help-understanding-this-scandinavian-continuation

UHM....WRONG!  That is in no way the main line, and a horrible line for White.

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 (3.Nf3 is also good) Qa5 (3...Qd6 is also fine, 3...Qd8 is passive, but not refuted) 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bf5 and now 6.Bd3 is an imbecile's move.  Instead, 6.Bc4! e6 7.Bd2 c6 8.Nd5! (The old 8.Qe2 gives Black at least an equal game) Qd8 9.Nxf6+ gxf6 (9...Qxf6 is inferior, and White has an easy game with a few moves to prepare d5, and then the lethal d5 push) and White has a bigger advantage than he gets if Black plays something like the Sicilian, French, 1...e5, Caro-Kann, or Pirc/Modern, but Black's position is not refuted.