The Scandinavian 3...Qd6 materials?

So I've been a big fan of the 3...Qd6 line of the Scandinavian for a while now. I recently got back into chess after 5 years away from the game. I've wanted to learn this variation specifically but can barely find any material on it. Does anyone know of a course or book that covers this variation? 

Look for "The Safest Scandinavian Reloaded" by Vassilios Kotronias and play through the games of Sergei Tiviakov in this line.

This great repertoire book (full repertoire for both White and Black) covers it (as Black's choice against e4) if I remember correct. I put a link as cc autocensor tend to block the title. https://www.amazon.com/Idiot-Proof-Chess-Opening-Repertoire/dp/1911465422

That's a decent var

Marek Soszynski's Book titled " Double Trouble Scandinavian Style" covers t3...Qd6 w/ g6 lines and 2...Nf6 lines (for anyone looking to vary their Scandinavian in tournaments) It not a beginners "How to" but it's not a university text either.

I'd also recommend Michael Melt's 3...Qd6 2nd addition. (to anyone playing the 3...Qd6 var) It's a 300 page university style text. Probably the best book on the 3...Qd6 var. The problem is the layout of the book is not for amateurs.

All Scandinavian players are crazy.

The opening is a bit suboptimal, but I do understand its surprise value.

You have to memorise plentiful variations too.

Stockfish prefers ...Qd8 retreat.

I've always challenged the "Suboptimal" moniker.

It's the oldest recorded defense known and was played With Frequency prior to WWI by the greats of the 19th century such as Blackburne, Anderssen, Mieses, Hanham, Marshall, Pillsbury, Mason, Spielmann to name a few. (FYI: these were the 2700s elo's of their day) It is also, very American... The Chess clubs in and around New York City.. Home of the following: Pillsbury, Marshall & Mason (FYI... Mason was the original Rubin Fine... he was one of the worlds elite players and retired from chess in his prime to pursue his career in business. ) played it extensively... That is where the name "Center Counter Defense" came from. In the 1960s masters from Scandinavia took it up and revitalized it, hence the name "Scandinavian Defense" A decade ago is was a regular, seen in the professional Chess Bundesliga.

There is nothing wrong with the defense if one understand it's dynamics . The Scandinavian gives up some space and tempo for defense and relies on counter attacking white's position. It's almost hyper modern in principle... ( I say almost.. the pawn formation is classical i.e. fixed for the most part)

The bad rap comes from people playing the defense, thinking they can just "wing it" and getting destroyed...

As someone who plays the Center Counter Defense IMO the worst variant is 3...Qd8 IMO it doesn't save a tempo, often retards any castling queen side and..... exerts no pressure in the center of the board. Truly a wasted tempo.

Here is a game recently played where Black, A) decided to "just wing it" when it came to the Scandinavian and paid for it with a loss... in Rnd 1 no less and.... B) played 3...Qd8 (it's a great example of why not to play that move... if your going to rely on 3...Qd8 don't play like this person.

An dot-Proof Chess Opening Repertoire by Burgess

As someone who played all four versions of the Scandinavian Defense for years - I found Shirov's 7 f4 difficult to deal with in 3...Qd6. I had my best results with 3...Qa5 and to me the best book for 3...Qa5 is The Scandinavian for Club Players. Having said that, I play the Petroff now.

I like the Petroff I play it, ... and I should play it more. Konstantin Sakaev wrote an excellent repertoire for Black based around the Petroff Worth looking into.

On the Shirov's line 7.f4 (yea it's an ugly line for Black) why didn't you play 5...a6 and the natural 6...Nc6, that line doesn't allow it.  Or am I missing something.

I like the lines with b5 and putting the LSB on b7

I was using the repertoire book The Safest Scandinavian, it goes with ...c6.

I'm using the repertoire book Playing the Petroff by Swapnil Dhopade. I couldn't see enough of a preview in Sakaev's book to be sure, but it looks to me in 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 d4 d5 6 Bd3 after Sakaev's 6...Nc6 (which looks fine but maybe adding on too much complexity for my taste), black will likely wind up without an anchor pawn in the center when white plays c4, I think I'd rather have the anchor pawn.

Dhopade gives the bit more usual 6...Bd6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6. Black will likely wind up with an iqp (also anchor though), but I play the Tarrasch Defense against the QG so I'm used to it. Not usually, but it can happen that black will relinquish it with ...dxc4 in this Petroff line but it looks to me like the positions are less involved than in the 6...Nc6 lines.

I don't know enough about the Petroff yet to say for sure anything much.

3....Qd6 I used to learn. On the one hand, 1...d5 is a less valuable opening (it was very rare even in the last world championships in rapids and blitz) but on the other hand there are a lot of traps for white, it's definitely not won for white and moreover white has no chance for some exchange draw variant like in some other openings.

For such variants that are not well described in the books I always create my own "book" using the engine and using what is realistically played. Of course, I then have to correct it in various ways because some computer moves are inappropriate. And I compare my book with the existing theory and choose the move that seems better to me.

Here's an example (generated fairly quickly using Leela).

of the 3 scandinavian variations, qd6 seems to be the one in most trouble.

im not saying these positions are outright unplayable but they sure seem unpleasant. at least qa5 leads to a harmonious structure and qd8 at least leads you turtle up in peace. this is ewww lol.

Caution...... that is not the main line.

5...a6 and 6...Nc6 cuts across your plan and Black equalizes

Anything but 6.g3 and Black equalizes

and then it's

I've been playing the Center Counter defense for about 2 decades now. I play both 3...Qd6 and 3...Qa5 Both have their strengths and weakness. IMO people see an engine evaluation of the first 5-8 moves but don't take into account the engine is giving the .5 to 1.0+ advantage based more on White's tempo advantage and not on the position. I'll pose a Question... If White has a tempo/development advantage yet the actual position denies White the ability to reap the benefits...

Does White really have a "real" theoretical advantage? (Same goes for a space advantage)

In many variations the Center Counter Defense leads to an improved Classical Caro-Kann, avoids the critical Advanced Caro-Kann and the Panov-Botvink Attack .. all that usually at the cost of a tempo advantage for White that.... if Black knows what they are doing, dissipates late in the opening phase giving chances to counter attack.

apples and oranges, if black wastes all this time with a6,the f4 strategy is not what you play. I tend to play 4.g3 vs the qa5 scandinavian so g3 here is perfectly natural for me. 
improved caro kahn? you gave away the bishop pair like those bg4 lines of the caro, but you also have played the time wasting a6 and queen looking real goofy on d6. I dont see any reason to prefer this over the qa5 line.

the panov is not exactly critical and the advanced caro is often the kind of position black wants. They are plenty of caro kahn sidelines cleaner than this. This qd6 stuff is not outright refuted but i just fail to see the appeal to this.

Apples to Oranges , i just fail to see the appeal to this. 

Ah... The most solid thing you have wrote...

The Center Counter Defense is played with regularity at the 2200-2500 range. Why is it not seen at the highest levels over the board? It's not because it's been refuted, or that Black is somehow below the 8 ball because of the tempo...

I'm thinking it's probably more to do with it lacks breath and scope that satisfies the modern GM.

It can get repetitious...

To a club player... a class A and below... isn't that's music to our ears?

Apples to Oranges yes indeed....

my issue is not the scandinavian as a whole, its this qd6 variation, which leads to some sad positions agaisnt critical play.

its not even the higher than average eval. its that the resulting position just seems like a worse version of other positions for no good reason.
just look at whats being suggested...

bh5 is already 1.2+ for no good reason, and bxf3 qxf3 c6 is just a much worse caro kahn position. Why in the hell you would you willingly jump into this? they are not even any traps, its just a plain worse position. just play the qa5 scansi or the caro kahn proper.

Put the engine evaluation aside for a second, look at the position.

Let me highlight AGAIN..... the engine is reading White's development....

In my last post,

I covered that position ...

Can White get a 1.2 or whatever pull/advantage in the position? Or does the position disapate down to equal in the next couple of moves..?

I'm not an expert... but according to the Melt's text on 3 . Qd6 it does disapate down to equality...

do you understand how evals work? the engine is taking into account ideal play many moves ahead. IF the eval is dropping considerably, white is just playing badly.
besides this is NOT a position where the eval would equalize any time soon, white has a bishop pair, more space, more development and black has a misplaced queen. is advantage is nagging and very difficult to fully reverse unless he allows very advantageous exchanges.

i mean, if an opening is not outright busted it should equalize ....EVENTUALLY with ideal play. But that tells you nothing on how arduous the path will be.
my question still remains, why would you choose this version over the caro or qa5 scandinavian?

If the eval is dropping ...white is playing badly? ???

I VERIFIED WHAT I PUT IN THE PREVIOUS POST WITH STOCKFISH 17... which matched Melt's evaluations

AFTER 6.g3 Bg4 7.h3 Bh5

8.Bg2 Nc6 plays out to unclear or equal.

8.Bf4 plays out to equal with Black

8.g4. the Same...

look deeper into the positions.... and you will see what I am refering to .....as long as Black Fights for controll or owns the white squares in the center..

Also... one can not assume someone is going to play naturally the most optimum moves thst a modern chess engin is going to play...

As for The Mieses Var 3...Qa5 being better.... again that debatable... although I will admit , I like 3...Qa5 better. 

We can debate this till the cows come home....I'm bowing out and have conceded the floor.... it's all yours.

what position are you analyzing?. after 7..h3 Stockfish 17 has it at 1.15 at depth 42 and thats only after bxf3, bh5 is even worse. Did you imput the position correctly ? (you may have put c6 instead of a6)

7.h3 bh5 8. bg2 nc6 is outright terrible with eval at 1.5ish at depth 34. This is entering if not already at refutation territory.