Scandinavian 3... Qd8

I play Scandinavian and never played 3...Qd8. I believe its a waste of tempo yet it is played by many and even recommended by opening experts as safe and playable. Can someone explain?

Some may prefer this to the alternative, 3. ..Qa5 and the soon-to-be-played Bd2 and possible a3 to attack the Bb4..... Just my 2c. It's a risky defense either way.... I love it too.  

Below is one mention of that move by Chernev. He calls 3...Qd8 "shamefaced" but mentions that, either way, Black must move his queen twice in the opening. I agree. After looking at that defense a lot (years ago) I began wondering why Black would ever play 3...Qa5 when he's just going to get his queen chased around anyway, often right back to d8, so why not just accept the tempo loss right away with 3...Qd8, and be satisfied that he "equalized" as far as pawn moves go, and got an open game?

----------

(p. 198)

3...Qa5

   This move, exerting pressure on

the diagonal leading to White's king,

is preferable to the shamefaced re-

treat by 3...Qd8. In either case,

though, Black has had to make two

moves with his queen, instead of de-

veloping another piece.

   The beginner likes to give check

whenever he can, and here it might

lead to something ike this: 3...Qe5+

4 Be2 Bg4 5 d4 Qe6 6 Be3 Bxe2 7

Ngxe2, and White has three pieces

in play to Black's one--and that one

a badly placed queen.

Chernev. Irving. 1998. Logical Chess: Move by Move. London: Faber & Faber.

1998 is the date of publication. IMO, 3. Qd6 is the best move or better than Qd8 and Qa5. Thanks for your reply Sgod.

Busted.

Database statistics show that you're right: White has the lowest percentage of wins with 3...Qd6.

1. e4 d5 {Scandinavian Defense.}

2. exd5 Qxd5 {'Anderssen Defense.'}

3. Nc3 {"Pikula Attack."}

3...Qa5 {"Prie Defense." #1 pop. w 42%.}

3...Qd6 {Pytel-Wade Variation. #2 pop. w 38%.}

3...Qd8 {'Vinoles Defense.' #3 pop. w 45%.}

3...Qe5+ {Patzer Variation. #4 pop. w 64%.}

3...Qe6+ {Mieses–Kotrc Variation. #5 pop. w 74%.}

Stadistics have no relevance in OTB databases.

Both 3...Qa5, 3...Qd8 and 3...Qd6 are good moves, however I do believe 3...Qa5 and 3...Qd6 should be better than 3...Qd8 but it is unclear which move is better, 3...Qa5 or 3...Qd6.

I would probably go with 3...Qd6 because the queen looks better placed there than on a5, and because it is more rare than 3...Qa5 which should give you a free theory chess game.

Greetings dear chums.

What are you talking about? I'm looking at a database of OTB games, which is where the statistics come from.

Im probably drugged at this point.

Stadistics from OTB games, do not really say which move is better.

Oh man, now that I think about it I should probably get help, Im mixing too many words.

3... Qa5

Sometimes, a move may be wrong in principle and yet easier in practice.  Declining certain gambits is a good example.  In the Smith-Morra, for instance, after 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Black may play 3...d3.  The idea can work in other gambits as well.  In principle this probably isn't the best move: Black is making an unnecessary pawn move, not claiming material, not developing and not creating a threat.  That said, playing Black's position is much easier here than in the principled lines were he tries to hang onto his pawn and face White's ferocious attack.

This same idea is true for for the Qd8 Scandinavian as well.  In principle, it can't be the best move: it's wasting a tempo moving the Queen back to the original square.  In return, though, he gets a solid, weakness-free position and an incredibly easy system of development with a clear plan for the middlegame.

Here's another example of a line that is almost certainly not the best objectively or in principle but is nonetheless worth a look:

3...Qd8 is seen as the best reply in J.Shaw's 1st volume on 1.e4 with white.

Qd6 and Qa5 have their problems, It seems that Qd8 avoids them (no need to play again this queen), and u get the structure u want.

For more information, just get SOS vol 4 - chapter 2, where only 10 pages will be enough to have a good start with it.

Sure u can have more informations with this :

https://www.amazon.fr/qd8-Scandinavian-Simple-Strong/dp/1936490765

But is it worth a book and spending so many time on it?

I prefer the SOS approach.

That is a 2013 book. I probably understimate Qd8. And I havent read any article that it is a dubious opening or have been refuted. Can someone post a beautiful game of Qd8 where black wins?

Try looking at it from a different angle:

Hypermodern theory involves conceding the OCCUPATION of the center to your opponent, while trying to maintain CONTROL of the center in your own hands... at least in the long run. In other words, you induce your opponent to place his Pawns and pieces in the center AS TARGETS, while you build up pressure on the open lines leading to those targets.

The Exchange Variation of the Gruenfeld Defense is a case in point:

Black is behind in time (his g8-Knight moved three times before being captured, while White's b1-Knight moved only once before disappearing - that cost Black two tempi), and White is in full occupation of the center... yet nobody claims that Black's position is lost. In fact, some QP players feel that this line gives White no advantage at all.

Try looking at the 3. ... Qd8 line in the Scandinavian as if it were related to the Gruenfeld Exchange variation.

Black lures White into the center, giving up a tempo or two in the process, and gains targets for counter-attack. The two opening systems even have the half-open d-file in common.

Here is a sample game

Wow! 3....Qd8 played by the WCC. Best proof Qd8 is sound.

Best reply.

I laugh at people thinking Qd8 is beginner move and a mistake. They have no idea of openings and ideas. They rely on childrens rules like don't move queen early, don't move same piece etc etc. And yet they spend so much time on memorizing which variations is best etc, without really understanding pawn structure , style and plans of the openings. They end up playing opening that is not suit for them...

After all they are no more than 1600~ players - they should spend all of their time on tactics.

I played this variation when i did not knew any theory and did not want to end up in some traps/preparation or openings that i did not knew what to do by move 5,  but just wanted to play chess with solid structure and easy safe development. This Variation is played by IM John Barthemelow you can check his youtube channel - very solid and positional player.

This opening is perfect by players who at beginning or overall are afraid or lazy to study openings and are low rated - because beginners don't know this openings and how to attack - all they do is pawn push and giving checks and i had a lot of wins with this one - you know where pieces belongs and what to do. But unless you know your style and you are very good at positional play i do not recommend this opening at advanced level - better play sharp lines with tactics. This one is tactic free and can give you a lot of draws or a positions without an attack or positions against a player who pushes you whole game and you just defend defend... Sure there are lines with developening LQB Nc6  and castle queen side for an attack..

But yet i am about to test openings which first you start slow, defense but then you start attacking and opposite ones. I am not sure about those ones. I mean if you want to attack why first start with defense etc or why giving up center only to attack it later if you can occupy it at beginning etc.

All that is advanced stuff and for players with a lot of knowledge and expererience , this is nessecery for playing it correctly.

This said we came back to the first point - stick with simple opening principles and study tactics tactics tactics and endgames. When you played a lot of different openings and you experemented and you know your style and have an idea how to play - then you start study individual openings deeply.

Ofcourse you can play only 1 opening until you feel comfortable overall about your chess and feel ready to proceed to next level.