Scandinavian 3..Qd6 and 3..Qd8

Sort:
darkunorthodox88
Optimissed wrote:

After 4. d4, black's best seems to be ....a6, which means black can meet Ne5 with Nc6. Then, white can't follow up with f4, so Shirov's line is completely wrong.

You obviously dont play the shirov line if black abandons his standard piece formation, but after 4...a6 5.g3 white's advantage is still quite large, and more importantly, idk for what. white has more space, nagging pressure on the light diagonal, will harrass the queen some more with bf4 etc. All black has, is a funky position that looks an inferior cousin of the d5 nimzowitsch as blacks queen is harrassable on d6 and he really cant hope .to play e5 in the near future.

for example. 4...a6 5.g3 bg4 (main move here) 6. h3! bh5 7.bg2 nc6 8.d5! nb5 9.bf4 qc5 10.be3 qd6 11.qe2 is just busted for black. I welcome you to suggest improvements for black 

the most i can say in defense of the black side of this is that the number of master level players that would know about some of these lines right out of the top of their head is quite small. even those that do to some degree often dont execute it perfectly and +1 advantages due to inaccuracies become more manageable white edges. But in an age of wide access databases and cloud engine supercomputer in every player's laptop why would you risk getting into a miserable position like this!? it doesnt even give you that many practical chances?

I can tolerate a 0.9 from stockfish 14 if the position looks sufficiently complex for humans to be worth the dubious eval and i wont be limping for a draw 15 moves later, but this just looks like black merely wants to prove he can survive this lol

darkunorthodox88
Optimissed wrote:

Yes, I spent some time playing with the weak assessment engine they have here and came to the conclusion that g3 was good for white typically in lines where a6 is played. I play d4 and before that it was Nf3 and then c4 earlier still. This is the first time I've ever looked at Scandinavian lines. I think that a lot of 1. e4 players wouldn't consider g3 lines. Even some stronger ones, more than likely. I have the same reaction to 0.9 from SF. It's inflated, normally. It usually means about 0.5, after a few optimal moves.

Oh i know what you mean about eval inflation. Earlier engines like stockfish 11 gave far more conservative estimate despite having usually similar evals if a position is slightly better or much better etc at higher depths.

But the problem here is not one of eval numbers. The problem is if you analyze some of these lines deep enough, black is like one inaccuracy away from being completely +2. This isnt some old indian position where the engine may give an inflated but steady 1.2. This qd6 a6 scandi stuff looks like a total minefield for black whereas if white misplays it , his advantage just becomes merely a standard white first edge in a secondary defense. That is alarming. It means black faces great practical difficulties which are even more worrisome than the theoretical eval.

 

if you look at some of the database stats, they dont paint a pretty picture and if you look at gm games, even when white botches it with an inaccuracy his positions are far more pleasant and less liable to decisive errors. Whereas black cannot trust natural moves for quite some time.

tygxc

#32
You cannot conclude anything about a 30-men position from 10 minutes with a subpar engine.
If you could, then you had chess solved in 5000 minutes.
Computer evaluations of a 30-men positions are worth nothing because of the horizon effect. There are too many possibilities for a meaningful evaluation. Only with 26 men or less do the evaluations start to become meaningful.

darkunorthodox88
tygxc wrote:

#32
You cannot conclude anything about a 30-men position from 10 minutes with a subpar engine.
If you could, then you had chess solved in 5000 minutes.
Computer evaluations of a 30-men positions are worth nothing because of the horizon effect. There are too many possibilities for a meaningful evaluation. Only with 26 men or less do the evaluations start to become meaningful.

I think this attitude is drastically misleading. Yes in complex positions, even higher depth evaluations still need to be viewed with some skepticism. For example There is a tricky line in one of my defenses where the engine gives a "mere" 0.7 to white, but in fact even a depth 40 the engine struggles to see what a decent master can. Its much worse than 0.7. 

but this is quite often the exception to the rule. an engine with high depth with a decently strong player at the helms who can zoom in an out of variations can give you a very concrete eval for the vast majority of opening positions. The horizon effect often manifests as strategical shortcoming which a strong player can say if for example, this 0.8 is merely a draw with nice imagery or a real push for a win. Or if certain positions are "Really" 0.00 in who can push to win.

tygxc

#35
"There's no way I'd play the Scandi as black. It's played below, say, FIDE 1800 for the same reason the Colle is played, the London, the Rubinstein French and so on."
++ That is not true. The Scandinavian, the Colle, the London, and the Rubinstein French are all played by top grandmasters, FIDE 2800+: Carlsen, Kramnik, Nakamura, So, Mamedyarov, Karjakin, Dubov, Anand, Gelfand...

Ilampozhil25
tygxc wrote:

#32
You cannot conclude anything about a 30-men position from 10 minutes with a subpar engine.
If you could, then you had chess solved in 5000 minutes.
Computer evaluations of a 30-men positions are worth nothing because of the horizon effect. There are too many possibilities for a meaningful evaluation. Only with 26 men or less do the evaluations start to become meaningful.

"subpar engines cant solve positions above 26 men"

"subpar engines can solve chess"

chess starts at a position above 26 men? this is ridiculous?

tygxc

#41
Nobody tells you to play the Scandinavian.
But do not derive that the Scandinavian is bad from your own preference.
Anand played the Scandinavian in a world championship match against the greatest attacker of all time. Anand lost, but do not blame that on the opening.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018629 
Larsen defeated the reigning world champion with the Scandinavian in a super GM tournament
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068107 
Carlsen played it at the Olympiad against Caruana
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1768345 

tygxc

#43
I guess black's problems stem from 8...g6 and 9...Bg7, while it is thematic to develop the dark square bishop on d6 in such positions.
Anyway Anand apparently was of the opinion that the Scandinavian was his best chance to play in one of the most important games of his career. That Anand lost proves nothing about the Scandinavian: he probably would have lost just the same if he had played another defence.

tygxc

#44
Larsen did not intend to capture Qxb2, he intended ...c6 and ...Qc7 so as in his words "to reach an improved Caro-Kann". Karpov was near unbeatable at that time. He won one super GM tournament after the other, winning games, drawing games and almost never losing any game. All the more remarkable that Larsen won with black and with the Scandinavian Defence.

brasileirosim
jamesstack wrote:

Does anyone know some good books on 3..Qd8 and 3..Qd6? from white's perspecive? I feel like I know what to do with 3..Qa5 and the various gambit lines. I dont see 3...Qd8 or 3..Qd6 very often but would like to be prepared for them anyway.

For blitz and rapid is 2…Nf6 interesting. Otherwise 3…Qa5 is better if you know what you are doing. There is a new book in Chessable about both …Nf6 and …Qa5. 

tygxc

#46
Even Carlsen cannot win a single game unless his opponent makes a mistake.
Anyway, I presented 3 games with long time controls involving 4 World Champions in 3 serious tournaments/matches with the Scandinavian.

brasileirosim
jamesstack wrote:

Does anyone know some good books on 3..Qd8 and 3..Qd6? from white's perspecive? I feel like I know what to do with 3..Qa5 and the various gambit lines. I dont see 3...Qd8 or 3..Qd6 very often but would like to be prepared for them anyway.

Here you see the Brazilian Supi defeating Magnus, who sometimes plays the Scandi in blitz games. Amazing stuff!

https://youtu.be/Q7gH_xUKJws

jamesstack
brasileirosim wrote:
jamesstack wrote:

Does anyone know some good books on 3..Qd8 and 3..Qd6? from white's perspecive? I feel like I know what to do with 3..Qa5 and the various gambit lines. I dont see 3...Qd8 or 3..Qd6 very often but would like to be prepared for them anyway.

For blitz and rapid is 2…Nf6 interesting. Otherwise 3…Qa5 is better if you know what you are doing. There is a new book in Chessable about both …Nf6 and …Qa5. 

2...Nf6 isnt that interesting to me since white can just transpose to the Panov. Qa5 I have a pretty  good handle on. I have an old book on the scandi that covers Qa5 pretty good but the coverage on Qd6 and Qd8 is skimpy. Thats why I was asking about the latter two moves. When I made this thread I was interested in the white side but now Im starting to get interested in playing it as black on occasion.

tygxc

#54
"I didn't think Larsen got an improved Caro! He has to play c6 when white plays Bd2. That was pretty well known at the time .... otherwise, black loses a tempo in the opening."
++ That is what Larsen wrote: to play the Scandinavian to reach an improved Caro-Kann.
The lost tempo is an illusion.
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Qc7 is exactly the same by transposition as
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd6 4 d4 c6 5 Ne4 Qc7
Larsen aimed at ...c6 and ...Qc7 just like in the Caro-Kann, but avoiding the Advance Variation, the Panov-Botvinnik Attack etc.

brasileirosim
jamesstack wrote:
brasileirosim wrote:
jamesstack wrote:

Does anyone know some good books on 3..Qd8 and 3..Qd6? from white's perspecive? I feel like I know what to do with 3..Qa5 and the various gambit lines. I dont see 3...Qd8 or 3..Qd6 very often but would like to be prepared for them anyway.

For blitz and rapid is 2…Nf6 interesting. Otherwise 3…Qa5 is better if you know what you are doing. There is a new book in Chessable about both …Nf6 and …Qa5. 

2...Nf6 isnt that interesting to me since white can just transpose to the Panov. Qa5 I have a pretty  good handle on. I have an old book on the scandi that covers Qa5 pretty good but the coverage on Qd6 and Qd8 is skimpy. Thats why I was asking about the latter two moves. When I made this thread I was interested in the white side but now Im starting to get interested in playing it as black on occasion.

I understand. On …Qd8 check John Bartholomew’s course in Chessable. I never tried …Qd6 and I don’t know any book. To be honest , I don’t think that it is worth to invest much energy on any Scandinavian, only if you want something for blitz. I guess Caro Kann or French will lead to more interesting things. Good players will say that the Scandinavian doesn’t have a clear path to a draw. But it always depends on how great you know your stuff. I always had the impression that white can have a good game even if he doesn’t know theory (not the same with 2…Nf6, which is somehow dubious but very tricky.)

jamesstack
brasileirosim wrote:
jamesstack wrote:
brasileirosim wrote:
jamesstack wrote:

Does anyone know some good books on 3..Qd8 and 3..Qd6? from white's perspecive? I feel like I know what to do with 3..Qa5 and the various gambit lines. I dont see 3...Qd8 or 3..Qd6 very often but would like to be prepared for them anyway.

For blitz and rapid is 2…Nf6 interesting. Otherwise 3…Qa5 is better if you know what you are doing. There is a new book in Chessable about both …Nf6 and …Qa5. 

2...Nf6 isnt that interesting to me since white can just transpose to the Panov. Qa5 I have a pretty  good handle on. I have an old book on the scandi that covers Qa5 pretty good but the coverage on Qd6 and Qd8 is skimpy. Thats why I was asking about the latter two moves. When I made this thread I was interested in the white side but now Im starting to get interested in playing it as black on occasion.

I understand. On …Qd8 check John Bartholomew’s course in Chessable. I never tried …Qd6 and I don’t know any book. To be honest , I don’t think that it is worth to invest much energy on any Scandinavian, only if you want something for blitz. I guess Caro Kann or French will lead to more interesting things. Good players will say that the Scandinavian doesn’t have a clear path to a draw. But it always depends on how great you know your stuff. I always had the impression that white can have a good game even if he doesn’t know theory (not the same with 2…Nf6, which is somehow dubious but very tricky.)

Thanks for the suggestion but I prefer old school style of books with actual paper pages. I once tried to study a chess book on kindle and discovered it just didnt feel right. I think you are probably about the french and caro kann leadng to more interesting things. The reason Im interested in the scandinavian is that I recently changed my philosophy when it comes to openings. I used to think that all you need is one opening for each reply your opponent might have to your first move. Now I think its better to be able to play a wider variety of openings. The scandinavian is something I would like to investigate thoroughly one day but it will probably be a while. I am currently working my way through the e6 sicilians with the idea to play them as black and be more familiar with what to do against them as white.. I have covered the four knights and have started studying sveshnikov....after that I may work on kan, taimanov and Okelly. Whenever I do study scandinavian, it might be interesting to study the caro kann too since one idea of the scandinavian is to get a simpler version of the caro.