Scandinavian as black for the developing amateur: 3...Qa5 or 3...Qd6?
Sort:
For the developing low-level club player with limited study time, and who is starting to more consistently play more games at the club and in rated tournaments, which Scandinavian "main lines" as Black do you recommend and why: 3...Qa5 or 3...Qd6?
Sep 22, 2017
0
#2
I like the Qd6 lines but it probably doesn't matter at that level. White has a lot of good options against either but I find it playable, for the most part. I haven't done any extensive study but both moves may end up transposing into the same positions much of the time.
Perhaps it is helpful to look at some samples from books on the possibilities. Here is a sample from The Modern Scandinavian:
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/948.pdf
Another (slightly older) 3...Qa5 book is Play the Scandinavian.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627073000/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen142.pdf
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/PlaytheScandinavian-excerpt.pdf
On 3...Qd6, there is The Scandinavian: Move by Move.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626232217/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen171.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7270.pdf
Also: The Safest Scandinavian
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7577.pdf
I don't think that was a great representation of the Qd8 scandi considering carlsen was worse most of that game
Sep 22, 2017
0
#5
dannyhume wrote:
For the developing low-level club player with limited study time, and who is starting to more consistently play more games at the club and in rated tournaments, which Scandinavian "main lines" as Black do you recommend and why: 3...Qa5 or 3...Qd6?
I'd go with 3...Qa5. To me, it's easier to learn and understand the basic development plans. The a5 square is a natural relocation square for the queen—provides a potential tactical pin and keeps the queen from blocking the development of your own pieces.
I find Qd6 a bit trickier for black to play if you aren't adequately prepped, as it limits the development of black's king bishop, and sometimes gets harassed by white from moves such as Nc4 or Bf4.
Check out the games of Hikaru Nakamura if you decide to play the ...Qa5 variation. He's played it quite a lot against the other elites.
3...Qd8 is fully playable, as is 3...Qa5 and 3...Qd6. The first has the less theory to study, the second is the riskiest/most ambitious, and the latter the most solid. I would say that 3...Qd8 should be fine if learned properly.
All three variations lead to a cramped game. Qd8 seems bad due to it's undevelopment. Qa5 is risky if white plays b4 at the right time., but can easily transfer to the kingside. Qd6 limits Bf4, but the queen seems like a target on d6. IMHO, Qa5 is best as I'm an aggressive player, and the fishhook trap is common in this variation, a good trap to learn at your level.
I agree with @DeirdreSkye. 3... Qd8 is really the only line White doesn't have something strong against.
Sep 22, 2017
0
#9
This is another variation that may be better for black. I see it more often with better players than me......if white tries to protect the center pawn can lead to bad complications.....white's best third move is actually d4....
Scandinavian Defense (3...Qd6 / 5...g6 variation)...
The following book has probably the best treatment of this particular line....
The Scandinavian: Move By Move by Cyrus Lakdawala...
https://www.amazon.com/Scandinavian-Move-Cyrus-Lakdawala-ebook/dp/B00CSTCESW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500938688&sr=8-1&keywords=the+scandinavian+lakdawala
Note: this book deals only with the 3...Qd6 Scandinavian.
The 3...Qd8 Scandinavian by Daniel Lowinger.
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/3Qd8-Scandinavian-The-76p3822.htm
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/2776.pdf
Qd6 is too difficult at lower levels of ability.
Qd8 is downright dubious and white doesn't need to prove anything too soon. Development should tell.
I know s/he's 2800 but in the Caruana-Carlsen ...Qd8 game, white played really, really badly. I shouldn't need to explain why. Such a game provides no indication of the soundness of Qd8: almost as if white was trying to throw it.
universityofpawns wrote:
This is another variation that may be better for black. I see it more often with better players than me......if white tries to protect the center pawn can lead to bad complications.....white's best third move is actually d4....>>>
This refers to 2. ...Nf6 of course. A lot of people would probably disagree with this assessment and maybe choose to play 3. c4 ...c6, followed by 4. d4, getting a Caro-Kann. There are other approaches too, which have somewhat put 2. ...Nf6 out of contention.
Sep 23, 2017
0
#17
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Maybe the fact that Carlsen choose to play it means it is a perfectly playable line.
Maybe.......
Carlsen never played something unsound in classical chess.
Probably true. Though Carlsen doesn't seem to have a preference between the three main Scandinavian variations—he's played them each once and has yet to lose with any of them.
To him, black's third move there likely doesn't make much of a difference. He'll play any one of them on any given day.
Thanks for the responses everyone... I will have to take a closer look at 3...Qd8. I had been leaning toward 3...Qa5 because it seemed like it would have more tactical lines for learning and because the Wahls book covers the middlegame themes, structures, and plans for 3...Qa5, but there seem to be more recent books and videos covering 3...Qd6.
Recently, I played in one USCF-rated Quick and one USCF-rated Standard tournament... In those tournaments, I answered 1.e4 with d5 in 3 games total, yet White deviated on move 2 or 3 in all 3 games, twice playing 2.e5 and once playing 3.Nf3, so I have not yet been able to get into a move-3 mainline Scandinavian in a rated tournament in 3 tries.
Recently, I played in one USCF-rated Quick and one USCF-rated Standard tournament... In those tournaments, I answered 1.e4 with d5 in 3 games total, yet White deviated on move 2 or 3 in all 3 games, twice playing 2.e5 and once playing 3.Nf3, so I have not yet been able to get into a move-3 mainline Scandinavian in a rated tournament in 3 tries.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I know s/he's 2800 but in the Caruana-Carlsen ...Qd8 game, white played really, really badly. I shouldn't need to explain why. Such a game provides no indication of the soundness of Qd8: almost as if white was trying to throw it.
The result doesn't really matter.Both could play better and could play worst.
I'm sure we all could improve on Caruana's and Carlsen's game from the comfort of our couch and with the help of our engine.But Caruana had his reasons to play like this and he even got an advantage.
Maybe the fact that Carlsen choose to play it means it is a perfectly playable line.
Maybe.......
Carlsen never played something unsound in classical chess.
Yes , Karpov is way past his prime , still , remains a player that understands chess better than anyone.Maybe the fact that he choose 3...Qd8 and not the other 2 means something.>>>
It's playable .... after all, it's Bronstein's line. It was considered playable but maybe only by the elite of the elite. However, the general rule should be that the soundness of a line cannot logically be illustrated by an example in which the opposition plays badly, and I hope you can see that Carlsen's opponent played really poorly in that game. White gets a lead in development and a proper use should be made of that lead, instead of giving black targets to aid his development. I'm not even convinced that 4. d4 is particularly useful against Bronstein's line. Certainly, h3 was against all the principles of correct development. I didn't even like Nf3 and it just got worse and worse.
I've taken a look all the way through and white never held the advantage. What white had was more space combined with some initiative. It's an old principle that too much space is a weakness when there are insufficient means to defend it. Carlsen took full advantage of this hollow centre and, in my own opinion, outplayed Caruna all the way through. Carlsen plays rather like I do, but just about 4000 times better.