Scandinavian Defense: Mieses-Kotroc Variation, 3.Nc3

1.e4 d5 2.e5 you have a comfortable choice. 2.Bf5 is probably most principled as you develop you bishop actively then play 3.e6 and you have a French with a better bishop than normal. Or you play 2.e6 and it is just a normal French.

In your game the main options for the queen on move 3 are Qa5 Qd6 and Qd8. These are best because if white gains time attacking the queen you will be worse and these are the best squares for this not to happen. If you go Qa5 you should play c6 soon after so the queen can drop back to c7. Qd6 i like the best because it is central and active and you can prevent white attacking it whilst still developing yourself. Qd8 looks weird and i used to think it was just wasting a tempo but it was pointed out to me that white has also wasted some time and it transposes to a French defence. (Rubinstein French i think).

With Qd7 you block the development of your bishop so this will cost you time when you have to move it again to get the bishop out. As for other themes i am no expert on Scandinavian but the Icelandic gambit 3.e6 and Portuguese gambit 3.Bg4 are said to be dangerous if white is unprepared. I think those are the moves ul have to look them up to be sure or maybe some other guys will help.

Seems like the Scandi player could use some theory! The moves there are Qd6 (best) and Qd8. I would say Qa5 as well but I like Qd6 a lot more.

Thanks so much. So far so good, makes a ton of sense.

What are black's goals and themes for playing the Scandi, and do you agree with the IM advice that people who play the scandi will find success playing the Slav against D4

Also if you want to learn more about this opening, I suggest you join this club on the Scandinavian: https://www.chess.com/club/scandinavian-defense-3-qd6-variation.

The leader goes over the ideas regularly and I understand the ideas now more than with any other opening. Thanks CornerPawn! (He is the leader)

Well I just sent an app in so hopefully they can teach me.

Hold on...which IM are you talking about?

If it's Andrew Martin, just remember that in any given video at least half the things he says are likely to be wrong.

Why do you say so? I like his style, but I am just a beginner and dont know much like you do.

IM John Bartholomew said he likes the Scandi, and because he's a Scandi player, he thinks for d4 to try the Slav as they have similar pawn structures and middle games. I've literally never played the Slav though.

My opinion of the Scandi is that it's as playable as anything, but not something I can see myself playing in the foreseeable future. The positions White gets in the 3... Qa5 line are pretty tasty, and he does well against 3... Qd6 and 3... Qd8 with natural play. Also, I find the Scandi to be a little bit stodgy.

The Slav is one of my favorite openings.

And yes I am aware Bartholomew is a Scandinavian fan. He's good, and a good teacher. Was just making sure it wasn't the other person it could have been (actually I suppose it could also have been IM Bill Paschall, although he doesn't like 2...Qxd5). Actually I know his (Bartholomew's) followers on Twitter are supposedly members of "team Scandi". If you want to study it BTW you should go to chessable and get his Scandi repertore for black. He has a light version for free and a detailed version for a few bucks. You won't need the latter one though since the light one is plenty thorough for anyone under 2000. Yes I have gone through it in its entirety. 

I don't particularly believe in this opening as a way to win with black. Maybe you can make draws. I like playing it in blitz because black can blast through the first fifteen moves very quickly if he knows the simple theory, and white's not likely to know it. If you're under 1700 though it frankly doesn't matter what you play at all.

The Slav, however, is a very serious opening. I don't know what Bartholomew plays against 6. Ne5, but all other lines are very thematic and solid. 

Andrew Martin has made many, many, many videos advocating for almost every opening in chess. In fact I think there have been many, many instances of him recommending a position for white in one video and the same position for black in a later one. He seems to do this in order to make a quick buck and not actually to give good recommendations.

And furthermore a lot of the things he recommends are straight rubbish. On YouTube alone what can we find of his?

-2. Ne2? against the Caro-Kann

-Fort Knox French, and doing a horrible job explaining the Ng5 line btw

-6...f6 Albin Countergambit, a variation so rare he pretty much made up all the analysis on the fly it seems

-The Rubenstein French with 3...Nf6? which is like a million-times worse version of the mainline Burn Variation

-The Sicilian 2. Nf3 h6?, which makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine

-The Bird's Opening, because of course. 

and much more.

I own a DVD of his. I've owned it for about six years (yes, I got it when I was around 1000-level). It's on the Scotch Game. The DVD does a great job of showing how in the 4...Bc5 5. Nxc6 Qf6 variation, white can legitimately try for an edge with 6. Qf3. And in this it succeeds. However, it seems like that was the only thing he put any effort into whatsoever. His recommendation against 4...Nf6 (which is 6. Bd3 and 7. e5?!) is probably just worse for white, and he only shows about two example games in it. It really was a poor effort, and again this was one of the MORE legitimate openings he's recommended over the years. 

There are a lot of very good chess content creators out there. But there are also a few scam artists who routinely recommend garbage lines and silly novelties and use the fact that they're "unexplored" as an excuse to pretend they're good. No one, not even Roman Dzindzichashvili, does this more often, and has perfected this to more of an art form, than Andrew Martin. And that's why I don't have a lot of respect for the guy.

thanks for the explanation, I agree with many of your comments. About the albin, that line is so much fun, I have seen his video but yeah, it is on the fly analysis.