so annoying. How do I defend this!??
Sort:
HOW do I defend 1. d4 e5
I meant 1. e4 d5
I don't have much experience with the Scandinavian. I just usually take the pawn and wing it, but John Bartholomew on youtube uses that opening a lot. He has a bunch of videos covering it. I'm sure other members will offer good advice also
Possibly helpful:
Starting Out: 1 e4! by Neil McDonald (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627032909/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen89.pdf
A Simple Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Sam Collins
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/A-Simple-Chess-Opening-Repertoire-for-White-76p3916.htm
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Simple_Chess_Opening_Repertoire_for_White.pdf
My First Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Vincent Moret
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9033.pdf
Playing 1.e4 - Caro-Kann, 1...e5 and Minor Lines by John Shaw
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Playing1e4CaroKannandothers-excerpt.pdf
Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 by Andrew Greet
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/8665.pdf
CleverOak wrote:
I meant 1. e4 d5
Your question means nothing until you define on which side you mean you're trying to "defend" the line you quoted.
Still: if you mean "what should I play after I played 1.e4 and my opponent replied 1...-d5", then you google Scandinavian Defense and see what they say about it. As white, you're not here "defending" btw. Not yet.
If you mean "How do I continue after I played 1...-d5 in reply to 1.e4?", then you've got two choices: you google Scandinavian Defense and see what they say about it, or you resign playing that line, and pick an other move to counter 1.e4.
In any case: learn academical logic and know how to ask a question efficiently.
Icare001 wrote:
CleverOak wrote:
I meant 1. e4 d5
Your question means nothing until you define on which side you mean you're trying to "defend" the line you quoted.
Still: if you mean "what should I play after I played 1.e4 and my opponent replied 1...-d5", then you google Scandinavian Defense and see what they say about it. As white, you're not here "defending" btw. Not yet.
If you mean "How do I continue after I played 1...-d5 in reply to 1.e4?", then you've got two choices: you google Scandinavian Defense and see what they say about it, or you resign playing that line, and pick an other move to counter 1.e4.
In any case: learn academical logic and know how to ask a question efficiently.
And what is this "academical logic" that you speak of?
Perhaps the OP meant how should they defend their pawn on e4 after black plays 1...d5. I don't know much about the Scandinavian, or see it often, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis. Seriously, I take on d5 instead of defending e4. It just seems like a suitable way to address 1...d5. Uusally black busts out their queen, so I kick her away with Nc3 and after that, I try to continue to develop my pieces.
I read this thread right before I played a blitz game, and I gee-willickers, I got into a Scandi with black - and I didn't have a Dos Equis on hand. To the OP, take on d5, and stay thirsty!
One line is 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5. There is a video on YouTube, Karjakin vs. Nakamura 2013 Tal Memorial Blitz rd. 9, with this line. Watching how that opening goes will give you a sample of the ideas behind 1. e4 d5.
Black doesn't have to play 3...Qa5 though. So you probably need to investigate a couple of alternate lines from there as well.
Icare001 wrote:
CleverOak wrote:
I meant 1. e4 d5
Your question means nothing until you define on which side you mean you're trying to "defend" the line you quoted.
In any case: learn academical logic and know how to ask a question efficiently.
Yeah, sure.. and you should learn some simple pedagogy. The OP is at beginner level, and he's getting in trouble after opponent plays d5 in response to e4. Anyone but you understand what he means. Go listen to Mozart or something while shitting on your high horse.
OP, you can take on d5. If Qxd5 then Nc3. If Q checks, cover with bishop. Bring out your knight and castle asap. Start attacking the queen. It can be frustrating at your level, not knowing how to defend, but play and you'll become stronger
macer75 wrote:
And what is this "academical logic" that you speak of?
The same, logic that says 2+2=4, or that when someone says something, there are a defined number of solutions:
1°) They speak the truth
2°) They lie
3°) They're mistaking
4°) They're insane
When you can only "see" 3 or less of these possibilities, you'll judge with "some logic", but not with the only right logic: the academical one.
The academical logic is something taught in schools and universities, but not only. When I say "academical logic", it's in opposition to "personal logic" and such "made up logics". When we tend to speak as if people knew what is in our head, we are outside academical logic. (and no wonder misunderstandings happens).
Academical logic teaches number of things, such as what a sophism is, and there are academical examples of biaised, twistted, corrupted logic. You can google it.
Example of sophism:
1°) All Greeks are liars.
2°) Peter is a liar.
3°) Therefore, Peter is Greek.
Which is obviously false. We do tend to use such false logical patterns all the time, when we are not learned into that science. Chess logic is, btw, very much using academical logic patterns. Etc.
But who is 10 years old? The buddy icon of the OP? Could be anyone imo. And even if it's actually a 10 yrs old boy, he's not made of sugar. And if you think encouraging silly questions is a favour, then I've got nothing more to tell you.
Have a good day sir.
There is also a video on YouTube for an alternative line 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6. Leko-Potapov, Scandinavian Defense. Probably useful.
Nckchrls wrote:
There is also a video on YouTube for an alternative line 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6. Leko-Potapov, Scandinavian Defense. Probably useful.
Guys... Seriously, spare your advices until we know if the boy is annoyed because he doesn't know what to play as white in answer to 1.e4-d5 or if he's annoyed because he doesn't know how to continue (and actually defend) as black after playing 1...-d5.
You might think "but it's clear!", when no it's not. 
Icare001 wrote:
macer75 wrote:
And what is this "academical logic" that you speak of?
The same, logic that says 2+2=4, or that when someone says something, there are a defined number of solutions:
1°) They speak the truth
2°) They lie
3°) They're mistaking
4°) They're insane
When you can only "see" 3 or less of these possibilities, you'll judge with "some logic", but not with the only right logic: the academical one.
The academical logic is something taught in schools and universities, but not only. When I say "academical logic", it's in opposition to "personal logic" and such "made up logics". When we tend to speak as if people knew what is in our head, we are outside academical logic. (and no wonder misunderstandings happens).
Academical logic teaches number of things, such as what a sophism is, and there are academical examples of biaised, twistted, corrupted logic. You can google it.
Example of sophism:
1°) All Greeks are liars.
2°) Peter is a liar.
3°) Therefore, Peter is Greek.
Which is obviously false. We do tend to use such false logical patterns all the time, when we are not learned into that science. Chess logic is, btw, very much using academical logic patterns. Etc.
But who is 10 years old? The buddy icon of the OP? Could be anyone imo. And even if it's actually a 10 yrs old boy, he's not made of sugar. And if you think encouraging silly questions is a favour, then I've got nothing more to tell you.
Have a good day sir.
Your second example illustrates an application of classical logic. Your first illustrates... something. As for the term "academical logic," I have never heard it used anywhere, and if you do a quick google search of the term, you'll find that apparently no one else has either.
Maybe so. It's long time ago I've read a book about it. And if it's "academical" or "classical" I don't know. Still, in anything, there is what is academical (and what is not), as in, what is taught in academies, as in: schools.
My first is "freely quoted" but the pattern is correct.
Oh, and I just checked: it's "academic", not "academical". My wrong.
Anyway, right on the science of logic is named "the science of logic". Still, when one wants to make it clear they mean that sort of logic, they can say "academic logic", as in, the kind of logic taught in schools. Again, so said in opposition to what personal, popular, magazines, childish, logic.
Of course, one could say instead "Hey! Think logically!" but it's not sure what they hear when you say "logically" alone is what you meant...
In the past years, i've heard more and more, people, if working mates or my kids, or others, say "Hey! It's only LOGIC!" when they actually meant something like "It makes sense!". And this is where I started talking about what "academic logic" since when I tried to explain what they said had little to do with actual logic, they would not believe me. So, I enforced my point by outlining "academic". I'm sure you get the idea.
CleverOak wrote:
I meant 1. e4 d5
I don't think there is anything complicated about the OP's question. Basically he's asking what to play next after d5. Defend might've been a bad choice of words, but there are only two moves. If he was playing black and just played d5, he wouldn't be annoyed by the move because he chose it.
Slow_pawn wrote:
I don't think there is anything complicated about the OP's question. Basically he's asking what to play next after d5. Defend might've been a bad choice of words, but there are only two moves. If he was playing black and just played d5, he wouldn't be annoyed by the move because he chose it.
Probably so. Still, "defending" makes it unclear and we can only assume.
Icare001 wrote:
CleverOak wrote:
I meant 1. e4 d5
Your question means nothing until you define on which side you mean you're trying to "defend" the line you quoted.
Still: if you mean "what should I play after I played 1.e4 and my opponent replied 1...-d5", then you google Scandinavian Defense and see what they say about it. As white, you're not here "defending" btw. Not yet.
If you mean "How do I continue after I played 1...-d5 in reply to 1.e4?", then you've got two choices: you google Scandinavian Defense and see what they say about it, or you resign playing that line, and pick an other move to counter 1.e4.
In any case: learn academical logic and know how to ask a question efficiently.
Apparently everyone but you understood what he asked. I suggest you study logic: it's logical to realize a player giving a set of moves and asking how to "defend this" is playing the side that will make the next move. If I said, "How do I get to the stadium after walking down A Street and 1st Street?" I'm obviously asking where I move after 1st Street, the last one listed. You apparently got tripped up by the word "defend." Perhaps, along with logic, you should study Information Theory. It will show you ways of extrapolating meaning from incomplete and conflicting information.
Good luck! You'll get it eventually!
CleverOak wrote:
I meant 1. e4 d5
Why do people who put unnecessary comments here. The question is clear except for the mistake at #1.
@CleverOak, your have 5 games against 1. e4 d5. So my first advice is not to play 2. Nf3 as it drops your e-pawn on the spot. At your level you are not equipped with a gambit like that.
Here's another advice. Most of the time, you only have two options against d5 as a King's Pawn player. First is to capture on d5. Second is to push your pawn to e5, if possible of course.
Now lets analyze your game where you captured the pawn.
Last advice, instead of asking for a move, I believe you need to gain more skills. Practice looking at the board and see if you have proper "defense" for each of your pieces. Do the same with the opponent's side. After you are not losing your men without able to recapture, you can study basic tactics such as forks, pins and skewers. Then read the awesome article by IM Daniel Rensch about opening principles.