use of Scandanavian Defense

Why would anyone play any of the moves shown here? They are ridiculous.

Is the first supposed to be a premove trap?

After the second, 1. Qxd5+ Ke8 2. Qxd8 Kxd8 3. Nf7+, that's if there isn't better.

I don't think refuting Scholar's Mate is the strategic foundation of the Scandinavian.

Scholar's Mate is dangerous until you figure out how to defend against it.  Which is to say, till you get to about 800 level.

After that, discouraging an opponent from attempting it is the last thing you want to do.

Play the Scandinavian if you want a way to reliably get into Caro-Slav structures while keeping pieces on the board (Qa5 lines), or because you want a way to keep the structure fluid while giving yourself a choice of theory-lite but perfectly sound options (Qd6 lines), or because you have an affinity for crappy gambits (Nf6 lines) ;) .

He means that scholar's mate isn't a real threat and you can defend with useful moves, like bringing a knight out.

Why plan a strategy around a one move threat which doesn't lead anywhere? Just play normal moves.

Public life may not be for you.

The Nf6 variation, the Scandinavian is my personal favorite.

http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/B01_Scandinavian_Defense_Modern_Variation_2

The Kingside fianchetto line is the line I enjoy the most.

http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/B01_Scandinavian_Defense_Richter_Variation

It can also transpose into a Panov Caro-Kann or an Alekhine.

http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/B01_Scandinavian_Defense_Panov_Transfer

Hey Paul,

Thanks for your feedback.  Though more players play Qxd5, both approaches are sound and simply lead to very different games.  See for example the analysis in Jovanka Houska's book on the topic:  http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Out-Scandinavian-Jovanka-Houska/dp/1857445821

I do agree with you however about 4. d4 as a more a much stronger response than 4. dxc6.  I think this gambit is just too dangerous for white to accept. But that is still a proposition I am testing in my own games. And even if top players won't play that way, that doesn't mean that I am able to prove that this response is weak.  If top players know how to exploit the weakness, but I don't, then the line is still a problem for me to play against.

A good example on this point is the line.  1. e4 d5 2. e5 c5, which books hold is just great for black and no good for white.  I find that this variation comes up all the time in blitz, and frankly, I never find my game with black to be particularly strong. So even if theoretically this is bad play for white, I just can't seem to figure out why.