Scandinavian defense vs Alekhine defense

If you are interested, you have great Youtube video of Gothamchess about Scandinavian defense (How to crush opponents with the Scandinavian defense!)

On chess.com you have a video of Nigel Short who proposes a non-theorical line with white, in itself is already a confession I find.  

This inquiry is really scraping bottom with these two openings. It's like what's more exciting, farting or picking your nose?

The Scandinavian has been used by the champ himself Magnus Carlsen, by Anand, Tiviakov, Nisipeanu, and many more strong modern GMs. It's absolutely playable. Meanwhile the Alekhine I can't remember the last time I saw it in a top level game

Anything is playable.

my understanding of the alekhine is that it's more defensive and positional... probably not the best things to look for in blitz. 

Interessante

Interesting, I'll check it

Kind of but, without going that far xD

Actually that may happen if white plays 2)Nc3 within alekhine defense.

Yeah, most people think the same. Better compare alekhine to owen or h5.

I kidded above, of course, but if you look at the site's Opening Explorer set on Master Games, you get as responses to 1. e4, numbers 7 Scandinavian (at 34,550) and number 8 Alekhine (at 29,192) and the 9th opening down the list is the Nimzovitch Defense (1....Nc6) at 8,561 examples and then Owens Defense (1....b6) with 2,878 examples.

Usually people pick these openings to avoid their opponents' opening preparation and reliance on standard opening memory. However, one plays these more obscure openings generally to one's detriment. Jacob Aagard has said that if you avoid playing critical positions, you avoid learning a lot about chess. There is a lot to that. I suppose it's all about what you want out of the game: an impressive win rate against confused or low-skilled opponents or more modest results earned after hard struggles against well-prepared opponents.

I played the scandinavian for a little while on the theory that a small book would make it easier to prepare. It's honestly not as bad as some would have you believe and white can get into a lot of trouble if they deviate from best play. 

The issue though is best play for white is relatively natural and the strongest lines are painful for black. It's a second or third tier defense against 1.e4 (depending on how you do tiering). You're aiming for a familiarity advantage rather than the actual strength of the defense. 

I have no experience in the Alekhine from the black side as it has never appealed to me. I believe objectively it occupies a similar orbit to the Scandi and Pirc but seems to be far less popular than either of those openings. It seems playable enough if you study it up, so perhaps would suit the player looking to know more than their opponent at the cost of objective strength well. 

I think you pretty much nailed it.

I’m my completely biased experience with 2,400 alekhine defense games, I would pick alekhines every time.

Objectively, the Scandinavian would be better in classical, but in rapid and blitz where you do not have as much time to convert a +0.68 position, I would say alekhines.

Its more narrow, theory wise, and doesn’t lose by force. The only con is that it isn’t an explosive opening- you rarely have the option to attack the king or fight in an open center. There’s more maneuvering and subtlety in the independent options available to black.

If you’re itching to get something going, I wouldn’t recommend the alekhine.

It really isn't but ok. Just caters to different people.

I would agree if you mean that for most people, the alekhine's is harder to handle. I think most people are just uncomfortable playing the alekhine, where white's space advantage is so evident.