I'm not sure I understand all in details what you just said, but okay, the dynamic of it goes right. And you "stole" the fish thing from me! I used the metaphor before you in here!
so annoying. How do I defend this!??


Anyway, so here a game I played last year, and the interrest of it, is that none of us knew the theoretical lines of the opening... I'll explain why during and after the game:
There is more to say about the game, but I said what is meant to be said for the purpose of my post here.
My opponent was aware I just drew a FM the previous round, with black. That, along with what I explained in the game's comments, damaged his confidence and made him chose, poorly his moves. He was also some over rated, was aware of it, and was trying to slow down a rating loss dynamic.
I sure spotted every hesitation of him, knew he was "supposed" to play a Modern Defense, and had enough confidence to "force" him into a draw, that was enough a result to me: I planned to avoid playing an IM on next round, hehe
the thing is: since I "hate" learning opening lines, I play stuff with white, that is usually slower than that immediate d4. But having done my job collecting info about my opponent's play, and having observed his attitude, I went for the bold 3.d4 I'll never play again, now that I know toward what kind of trouble one is asking for by playing such a move. 3.d3 is just totally okay: you build, without bothering for an opening advantage, that's it.
Anyway, just to say: one can improvise from scratch an opening, provided one has a clue about tactics and strategy. GM Reshevsky did that all the time, and it worked enough to his taste.

I did not say 3.d4 is new. I said it's not good: I checked it out later on Chessbase, google and with Fritz, and it's not a very good move as I pointed out. The point is none of us knew anything about that move.
Before that game, I avoided mainlines of the Scandinavian, by playing 1.Nf3, or 2.e5?! or like I said: 3.d3. 3.d4 is much better when black tries 2...-Nf6.

But if you really want one cool continuation, oh your term is "defend"... here's one.
Maybe you can get some games with this as quite a number of 1200s fell for this simple trick.
I've been playing for more than 30 years, and i don't remember seing anybody falling into it, 1200 rated or not...
Anyway, don't play something just to hope that opponent will go all alone into this kind of trap.
Just play good, and u will get your award if u play better than your opponent, no need for hope chess.
I agree. But I have pinned the queen against higher than 1200 rated players in the same way without planning for it. Usually from the reverse side as black when the white queen takes black's pawn on d4 and retreats to c3 after Nc6. I think it's a least something to be aware of if the opportunity comes up, just not something to base your game plan on.

you can transpose to a Blackmar Diemer gambit
The Blackmar is a second rate opening, or even third rate if white plays 3.f3? (3...e5! with a clear advantage at no risk)
I am totally agree with you IM pfren, its good that you said this but its a world between your rating and mine so ideas or unsound openings who are totally not working for you can be a good weapon at my level , this kid wanted some ideas against the scandinavian and he will pick up what he find as best for him

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 Academic logic tells me that if a person is defending against a position, it is their move.

Icare001 Academic logic tells me that if a person is defending against a position, it is their move.
See an ear doctor then.

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.
Oh boy I don t hope this is true. Otherwise it must be much worse then I was allready afraid of!
Alvin_Cruz
I understand your point, but believe me, it's not a good idea to teach a beginner to set opening traps. It's tempting, yeah, like you get (some...) immediate result and some (actually shallow) encouragement that goes with it. But it leads to an emotional dead end, where, in the end, relying on such hopefull playing, the beginner will face a much harder wall in their progression, And the so sure final outcome, will be a well rooted and hence hard to remove, discouragement and low self esteem.
In other words: IM poucin spoke the truth.