Scandinavian "Declined" 2.e5

Alright, what's the point of this bishop exchange I've seen on a few of these at turn 4?  White's pawns are on the dark squares and black's are on the light squares, so isn't this trading white's good bishop for black's bad bishop?  I see this all of the time in the French, and it seems to usually go poorly for white in this case.  I have to agree with GreenCastleBlock.

Pacifiq

Of couse this was a silly line in the first place with 3. Bb5+ but I admit it took me too long to find the refutation.  Pacifique just because a master or even gm has played a certain way--does not mean it is a good way to play the opening.

You cannot compare the CK-Advance and this. 

In CK-Advance there is a pawn on d4. In Center Counter Advance there is no such pawn. 

But OK. I never play the CK myself but I take the challenge as long as I do not have to play 3. ... c5(!?).

You are not available for challenges ....

I don't think 2.e5 against the Center Counter is a serious attempt for an advantage. But even if black is equal, I doubt he can get more if white is just content for an equal game with easy play for black.

Edit: I'm guessing that black gets easier play against 2.e5 compared to white just playing the Grob. But it's just a guess.

It would be interesting to see a thematic tournament with 1.e4 d5 2.e5 as the starting position.

In fact...

Anybody who wants to join the 8 person tournament I just created:

http://www.chess.com/tournament/scandanivian-advance-white-must-play-2e5

So you were not allowed to start it after 2. e5?

You can only choose from the predefined positions, some of which are ridiculous with a capital R, but 2.e5 wasn't in the list.

Ponz`s analysis are self-serving as usually.

Of course my analysis is "self serving" and so is yours! However I am willing to admit when I make a mistake and so will agree with you that in the position in the past--the game is equal--the endgame position. 

but now we have my improvement and your follow up and now my follow up...

Your "improvement" leads to White`s advantage.

18)...0-0 seems counter intuitive after black has player h5.  Surely black will keep the rook on h8 instead, and consider playing hxg4 when the time is right.

Is white overextended?  That's the core question.

Has white given up his first move advantage?  That's a secondary, and perhaps unanswerable question, given that we are nearly 20 moves deep, and the opening phase of the game is basically over.

@zborg

Can you show better options for Black to defend vs 19.f6 threat? The fact that Black has nothing better than castling is evidence that 15...h5?! is not good.

@alexlaw & pellik

I agree that 2.e5 leads to equal play. This thread is "going on for five pages", because of Ponz, who has made claim about Black having advantage and tried to prove it with his wishful thinking analysis.

@Ponz is a former USCF Correspondence Champion.  I have his book on the Center Counter, (which was his workhorse from the Black side versus 1) e4).  When he makes claims about this opening (from either side of the board) I tend to listen.  Just my personal prejudice.  

Since I don't play either side of this opening, my simple inclination would be to put the position on Rybka, and let it play both sides.

But there is such an immense fetishistic obsession on this site regarding which openings are "best," in some pinheaded, deterministic logical positivism sense.  Hence the assertion that 2) e5 is OK, because "some GMs have played it."

Personally, I always play reversed openings from the white side.  So this problem never arises for me.  Below USCF 2000 ratings OTB, the advantage of the first move seems trivial, and perhaps not worth arguing over, IMHO.

Having said that, there are clearly many dozens of innoucuous moves that white can make within mainline openings, and white will still appear to be equal, or perhaps even slightly ahead, after 20 move pairs.  Case in point, the opening discussed above.

Yet these internet arguments just keep going on and on in the threads, ad nauseum.

Personally, I suspect that 2)e5 is theoretically "not recommended," and probably a weak move strategically, if white wants to hold onto his first move advantage.

But I don't have a dog in this fight.  

Some are interested in openings. Some are interested in which piece is better N or B. Some are interested in best player or best 5 players of all time. There are a lot of interests and sometimes we [or I] get stuck on one thing and of course it is boring to others.   

I had hoped to show how the value of the Ns and Bs change after each move but nobody really interested in that. To each his own

Well said FirebrandX.

The position only transposes into a C-K advance or a French advance if white plays d4. It seems to me that the omission of d4 is very relevant.

I agree that 2.e5 is equal for all intents and purposes. And @FirebrandX 2.e5 is not nearly as "stupid" as some of the crazy gambits which do have names and spots in the thematic tournament drop-down. Some of those, I imagine, are actually refutable with just my laptop and a week of research [that I'm not going to do].

So @Ponz, please considering doing some analysis of post #92 (or more analysis of your post #102), giving us your views about how the value of Knights and Bishops change, and considering (briefly) different play by both sides.

I'm especially interested in your contention that white might be "overextended," and black might have "the upperhand" in that middlegame.

That would surely elighten most of the contributors to this thread.  Myself included.

Otherwise, all we have to fall back on is the blizzard of ultra sharp complications typically provided by Rybka, or some other engine.  And the many stark (and rigid) opinions so far expressed in this thread.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Just a thought.  

Seems to me @ponz111 that this is a case of Larsen's "long is wrong". That's an awfully long variation for a conversation which starts on move 2.