so annoying. How do I defend this!??

mickynj

Yeah, you know what? You first learn French then lecture me about my English, okay?

You say you have a sophism there, but more important, if the first sentence would be "All liars are Greek", than "Peter is Greek" would seem true.

In fact is not, because in both cases, the premise is wrong: 

All Greeks are NOT liars and all liars are NOT Greek.

So nothing can be inferred from sentence #1, regardless what follows. That is why makes no sense calling them sophism.

If the first sentence is "All liars are Greek," then the inference is a sound inference. The conclusion is wrong because a premise is wrong, not be cause the logic is wrong - the logic is actually correct. For a logical inference to be sound, all that is required is that it is of a form that cannot lead from true premises to false conclusions.

As for the original question

I find that playing 1. e4 d5 2. e5 , while objectively not the best, puts the squeeze on your opponent and makes them uncomfortable, which is pretty valuable

I also play the Scandinavian a lot as black, and an opponent playing the Scandinavian Advance is pretty annoying 

No. For a logical inference to be sound it must have valid premise(s).

In fact from false premises one can arrive to either false or true conclusions. Such "logic" is nonsense.

Do it on a board,i can't understand writhing moves

If you have little understanding of the slav and semi-slav pawn structures you will find this opening nearly impossible to win. Caro-Kann positions can arise too. I am studying pawn structure chess by Andrew Soltis. He covers each major pawn structure formation in about 20-25 pages and 11 games. But after reading each chapter and reviewing it to make sure you got it you feel comfortable to bust it out in blitz and shortly after a tournament.

You can use good logic on bad premises. In the case of the inference

All liars are Greek.

Peter is a liar.

Therefore, Peter is Greek.

the basic from of the inference is

All A are B   - or, in first order logic, ∀(x)(Ax⊃Bx)  

p is A   - Ap

Therefore p is B   - Bp

which is completely fine. The logic is not particular to any specific example.

The tennison Gambit is a nice transposition

3...e5 is also very nice.

It's what I play in blitz. I've never seen the tennison gambit over the board... and I don't think I ever will lol.

While I agree with you that this gambit isn't correct, I don't think that it matters that much. You are an IM and we are just amateur trying to have fun. We won't encounter steong opposition like you do.  My experience is that many players who play autopilot openings like tgebphilidor, london system, scandinavian, grand prix attack are most of the time week in tactics and other areas of the game. Especially if you get them out of book early in the opening (e.g. with an incorrect gambit) you can clearly see that they only memorized all their autopilot moves. 

I like to play unsound stuff in bullet against players who play these kind of opeings because I realized that they are more likely to make mistakes in unfamiliar/tactical positions.

Bear in mind that it's bullet/blitz I'm talking about. Standard time cintrol is another story but scandinavian, london etc. players are not famous for deviating from their autopilot moves.

You can play any sort of crap in blitz/ bullet.

Why not...

This was played on high levels players in blitz i think you didnt gave the best black response 2 d4, it seems that there is no good way to transpose in the scandinavian defence (all dubious but it doesnt mean that it doesnt work !)

In the Carlsen vs Kramnik game I think Kramnik probably touched the queen intending Qxd5, but Carlsen surprised him with 2.Nc3. Hence this game is probably not a good example of what to do in the opening.

Yes you're right it seems you cant avoid the open Scandinavian you schould take on move ,2 exd5 but even great players can be confused