Rock Solid Opening for Black: the Scandinavian with 3..Qd6

On Friday the 01. April FIDE Master Barth offers a free chess course with the topic: A Rock Solid Opening for Black - The Scandinavian with 3..Qd6.

1. It's far from rock solid
2. 3.Nf3

The course deals with the variation 3. Nc3 Qd6. The other lines like 3. c4, 3. d4. 3.Nf3 are also important, but in this course only 3. Nc3 is analysed.

"Rock solid" sounds like some PR spin from a freshly opened can of corporate speech. It's like saying Black's position before the first move is rock solid - it gives no information on why we should consider this a useful line.

What is the Queen doing there ? Why isn't it bad that the Queen blocks development of the dark-squared Bishop on that diagonal ?

Does it only work with 3.Nc3 as shown or does it apply to 3.Nf3 (which I'm playing) as well ?

Which famous GMs or Super-GMs play this line ? Are there any famous games with it ?

Try to give a better teaser, please.

@JasonCarnage :

Please your rating here is only 1282 so we could argue u cast doubts on something u don't know...

Scandinavian with Qa5, Qd6, and even Qd8 are known to be rock solid, when u see the structure.

Just trust what stronger players offers to u, watch and try to understand instead of denying with your lower level...

It is free so u have nothing to lose by giving it a try.

i USED TO PLAY THIS VARIATION

My coach is an IM with two GM norms and he thinks the 3...Qd6 is dubious: the queen is just too much of a target.  IIRC correctly he mentions a line with g3 intending not just Bg2 but also Bf4.

In any case I've started playing 3.Nf3 just so I don't have to deal with Black's choices.  I showed one of my games to my coach and he says now he is going to start playing 3.Nf3 himself.  So sometimes the student teaches the coach, but in any event, despite my low rating (though right now it is based on one game -- I have been 1900+ both USCF and FIDE in the past), if I dispute 3...Qd6 being rock solid, is it ok since I have the backing of my coach?

I am also sceptical about the ...Qd6 lines, mainly due to the Nc3/Nf3/g3 stuff (and no, most of the times Bf4 is not what wants to do). Apparently my friend GM Kotronias thinks differently, and has just published a book on the 3...Qd6 Scandinavian, on the Chess Stars publisher. Quite alike his previous works, I am sure it will be a fine book.

I admit that a book on the Qd6 Scandi was the last thing I would expect from Vassilis, but hey- he is now 52 y.o. and has the right to relax a bit...

Actually I realized that the Qd6 Scandi is now part of his broad repertoire, which is the consistent thing to do when authoring a book.

JasonCarnage, if your time is that precious, please don't waste it writing utter nonsense on chess.com and then boasting about it. Regards.

Thank you for the kind suggestion, but I'll remain the only person who decides what I do and what I do not post. You are, of course, completely free to dislike it, I'm fine with that.

The line is solid as gravel for one and waste of time if you like playing playable positions.  White licks their chops when they see this line, seriously.  

Just trying to put a new spin on some old garbage.  It is in fact PR.

Jason Carnage you are correct about what you said in both posts.  Good for you to not worry about what non-playing chess snobs think; they love to criticize lower rated players to mask their insecurity and fear of actually playing and maybe losing a game and a sacred rating point.  

Thanks pfren and I want to say I mean no disrespect to the OP or the other titled master who has posted.  But please remember sometimes a class player has something to contribute, because you never know if their coach is a titled master!

It's your coach's right to dislike the variation. I do dislike it too, for reasons rather complex to analyse in detail, but the fact is one: It's entirely playable, entirely reliable.

Since I don't play much lately, I have met this only three times- one game OTB, and two correspondence. I won all three of them, but the OTB game was very quickly decided by Black's poor play, while the two corr. games were both decided by subtle middlegame approach, and not, in any case, because of the opening- where white just had the regular opening pull which is encountered in pretty much any opening where both sides play sane chess.

Did i say something bad about Jason Carnage?

I just meant your rating here probably shows u know little about this opening, and a stronger player could teach you something useful.

So just casting doubt on it seems a negative approach.

It was not an elitist comment or something like this, but titled players are always seen like arrogant when they just want to help...

If u don't have time to waste for lesson offered by a strong player, what do u want?

Maybe u should ask the coach going at your home, for free, and repeating his lesson only for you, when u want and for the time u want?

I already explained what I wanted in post #4.

A teaser that helps me decide whether I want to watch this or not. It's interesting because it's rock solid and no more information given just didn't appeal to me.

You seem to believe that just because something is free I need to happily chase it - I'm not that poor or desperate. If I find something sounds interesting, I'll watch it, if not, then not.

And if I want a coach coming to my home and do a lesson at a time I find convenient, then I'll pay him something worth his time. But that's neither here nor there, is it ? Because that's not what the offer is about and you'd not be the coach I would choose if I payed for one.

In that case, you would have to pay the trainer an extra $ 20 per lesson as solatium.

since 1962, there were many games, and particularly this one (comments by M.Marin on chessbase) :

U have this one too, the same olympiad (where Carlsen first meet it with white pieces before playing it with black, winning with both sides!):

Karjakin didnt find a good way to refute it, so few people must be able to.

But sure, before playing like this, its better to play Qa5 or Qd6 in my opinion.

Ukrainian GM Yuriy Kuzubov (Ukrainian Champion of 2014, and also by that time very close to 2700) plays 3...Qd8 pretty regularly, and scores annoyingly well with it.

But of course the pioneer of that odd system (with many contributions to his so-called theory) is the legendary GM Josif Dorfman.

@sargentoabel

Thank you, that was very informative! 

@pfren

lol, good one. Not every trainer is an emotionally delicate flower, though.

Well, Jason Carnage may not have a high rating, but everything he says seems entirely sensible and often agreed with by players who do have high ratings.

You often see weird and wonderful openings promoted by someone who has made a video or written an article.  Usually mainstream theory is right and the article or video wrong, not always, but usually.