Scholars mate: do you employ it?

I have had a lot of success recently with scholars mate, wondering if any good players use it?

I recall seeing a very well known FM falling for the scholars mate once.

I employ it part-time, with no benefits. 

There are no good players going for a scholars mate, because you can defend it very easily and white can't hope for an advantage at all if black plays reasonably. The FM who let it happen must have been either seriously drunk or falling for it on purpose in a game against his 4-year old daughter, in order to encourage her to play.

I don't consider myself a "good player" yet, but I'm good enough to know that trying for Scholar's Mate is not a good idea. It requires an early queen development to h5, which is usually a bad idea in the opening, since against decent opposition, you won't get mate, and Black will punish you for the early queen development.

Rather than trying for tricks like Scholar's Mate, you should follow sound opening principles, such as Fine's Rules for the Opening and other guidelines on that page.

No he wasn't and you can find the video on youtube. He posts under chessnetwork.

ChessNetwork a.k.a. Jerry is a national master not FIDE master.

@Perfect_Idiot

Even the best players in the world are not blunderproof in 1-minute bullet matches on the internet, though I think you'll have to admit to yourself that even under these conditions the mate wouldn't have worked if he hadn't almost premoved Bd6.

The video is still funny though, especially his reaction.

Most of the 10 move to mate or fewer games are a variation of the scholar's or fools mates,  similar position (usually a queen and a minor piece vs an uncastled king trapped in place and exposed by some mistake).   Such tactics happen a lot, actually....  and while few players would use such patterns as an "opening" (because it requires the opponent to make a mistake) many players will manuver into a variation of these if the opponent does make a terrible mistake. 

If there is no opportunity, you are going to have a queen out too early with no good position.   If there is an opportunity, make use of it.

No. While c4 is a fine square for the Bishop in many lines, the only reason to play the Queen to f3 or h5 is hoping your opponent will allow the immediate mate. Not only is it easy do defend against, but the Queen is too early developed, allowing Black to develop with tempo. White falls behind and will have to struggle to equalize.

Rule of thumb is: good players don't assume the opponent is blind, bad or drunk. 

(Respectfully disagree with this point. I use any advantage possible. I'd use physical intimidation in OTB if I could pull it off (it does work on kids tho ;) lol).)

So maybe not scholars immediately but to deploy it after move...10...for example might be pretty sneaky, sometimes people don't spot that your bishop is on a mating diagonal (confuse white with black, yes it happens to me too). Especially in 1 minute bullet I have found scholars to be a very trusty weapon.

1 minute bullet is the only time control where trying to employ scholar's mate doesn't immediately announce to the world that you know nothing about the game of chess.

I sometimes use it in bullet to punish an opponent who premoves his first 10 opening moves, but it only works once and after that I'm done.

Every now and then, if I find myself playing novice/beginner/rookie chess player, I might try for a scholars mate, doesn't always pull off but on those rare occassions that is does, what a feeling! 

Good old Tony the Tiger. 

That reminds me of one of my games with Eilysium where I played Bg4 after his e3 and then took his queen on the following move.

I think that scholar's mate is for people trying toscrew others out of a decent game.  When I play Sicilian, I see this too often:

I too play the same defense against the scholars mate 

Great minds think alike. 

Great minds don't think alike, for that is why they are great

I have used Legal's mate in a couple of games; both here and OTB.

Dee

I guess you're the great mind, then, because I most certainly am not.

That's very sweet of you, but lets not discuss who is greater or better than who, lets play chess first and act accordingly secondly