What's with the Scandinavian

Is this really a bad opening or no one ever can play it properly? I never had trouble at defending against it. And masters don't play it.. So what's wrong with it? 

It isn't too difficult to defend against a defense, is it?

And masters don't play it.. So what's wrong with it? 

Huh? Masters never play it...? Don't be that person... The Center Counter Defense (aka the Scandinavian ) is alive and well below 2500 elo.

It's a noob mistake to base your assumptions of openings on what super GMs play or don't play. 95% of all openings and defenses are playable below 2500 elo.

There is nothing wrong with the Scandinavian. Just like the Alekhine's defense it uses piece play as a fishing lure... to bait White into a position of familiarity. (all at the cost of a tempo due to the Queen getting kicked off the d5 square... Of course nothing is for free) You can throw opposition pre-game prep off by playing both 3...Qa5 & 3...Qd6 (or even 2...Nf6) the resulting positions, tactics and strategy can be vastly different dependent on the lines Black chooses.

Is this really a bad opening or no one ever can play it properly? Well.... IMO... there is some truth there. The defense can look simple to many.... I play d5, swap center pawns and then develop my pieces. That said.... , the Scandinavian breaks a serious opening principle... People who have taken up the Scandinavian know that White can and will... throw a lot of different move orders and use the sacrificed tempo to attempt to finesse an opening advantage. When I see a titled player lose playing the Scandinavian, after delving into the game.... a large proportion, it appears loose from their play in the opening. At that point I look up the player to see if they are indeed someone who has taken up the Scandinavian seriously. 90% of the time, they are not someone who plays the Scandinavian. IMO... the Scandinavian attracts the "I'll just wing it crowd" and they pay for it in spades.

***** Sound about right fellow Scandinavian players???? ******

IMO... the main reason you don't see it at the Super GM level is it's monothematic... i.e. singular in it's themes. Often as Black you will play a series of moves in rote fashion reaching predictable positions. That said... The Sicilian Najdorf, the Botvinik variation of the Semi Slav...etc...etc... have establish theory where you play in rote fashion also. I'm assuming the reason the above is more popular, the position(s) have much more depth and scope. that said IDK... I'm not a GM, nor will I ever be a GM. The Scandinavian must be fine for IMs and NMs because there are a slew who play it regularly.

name is a defense since it's a black opening.. like Sicilian.. but it's actively attacking right from the beginning. It is strange.. to hear this from a titled player..

I was talking to AI the other day, and asked when was it last played officially between GMs and saw it was mid 2024 last year.. there must be a reason.

I'm not being "that guy" or any guy in particular, but just thinking freely. Combining it with my own experiences, and simply questioning; either no one could play it properly or it's simply is a bad one..

well there are some weird ones like Grob, that no one ever questions.. but that's just off-beats.. but i see Scandinavian a lot, on streams, and people asking for example plays.. from streamers.. It, on one hand, looks popular, and the other hand, looks not. I'm a bit confused.

The unsound Portuguese gambit excluded, there is nothing "attacking" in the other Scandinavian lines- quite the opposite. Black is just trying to build a solid Caro-Kann center without messing with too much theory, and in order to achieve that he agrees losing some (hopefully noncritical) tempos with his Queen and maybe the Bc8 as well.

If you think this strategy is "attacking", well, you are delusional.

your initial message suggested "all openings with a -defense- tag, is a defense.." and you are now picking a spesific line in a spesific opening and claiming it's not attacking..

you completely ignored that i gave you the Sicilian Defense.. so with your definition it is also a defense right? > "It isn't too difficult to defend against a defense, is it?"

Seems like a matter of semantics (and/or a language barrier issue).

As White, you generally don't want to be "defending" against Black's opening moves. If you are, you've likely made a mistake along the way.

Also, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the Scandinavian. But it does force things down a relatively narrow path, compared to other defenses. I believe a lot of strong players are likely looking for a bit more variety or complexity in their e4 responses ...

Or something more practical, like snatching a pawn or two.

Again these things are irrelevant to the Scandinavian as an opening.

The following is surely labelled like a situation where Black is attacking (at the cost of couple of pawns) and White has to defend right in the opening.

scandinavian is mid

not only is the scandinavian fine for black in all the main lines like qa5 and qd6 but qd8 seems to hold too. In fact, GM Shimanov plays the bizarre 3.nc3 qe5!? with surprisingly good results including a win vs Caruana.

meltem bebiş, sen iskandinava mı taktın şen ya kızım bırak geç e4 oyna sen, çok mu lazım allasen

senin pfp niye ters duruyo pisicik

Fair point.

Gambits do tend to turn the tables, a bit.

The scandinavian is a fine opening. Because of the many subvariations in it, black can usually get away with knowing very little theory in it.

This is usually players main motivation for picking the scandinavian - to avoid theory. I would consider this to be a mistake.

If you pick an unusual opening, you should be damn sure that you know it better than your opponent. Otherwise you may end up having a lost position early in the game. The only advantage to picking something offbeat is that your experience and knowledge will likely become an advantage.