It is not really a gambit since white cannot hold onto that pawn. It is just a delayed recapture. The opening is solid for both sides (it is one of IM John Bartholomew's favorite lines).
White can keep the pawn but it's awfully complicated to do so. The line is 1.e4 d5 2.ed Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 e6 6.g5 Nfd7 7.Nc3 followed by playing the rest of the game like stockfish. If someone actually plays this then you just got unlucky. There's a lot of discussion on this at chesspub but I doubt I'll need that kind of analysis anyway...
There is also the possibility of the icelandic gambit.....where there are a million pitfalls for white to easily fall into.
I'm clearly no expert, but the scandi seems dubious unless researched very well. I've committed to English and Sicilian openings as an alternative for e4/e5, and at my level I come across a lot of Anglo-Scandi's and Smith-morra gambits because people just want to get the queen out as fast as possible. That seems to be the only edge of the Scandinavian, queen activity, but usually at the cost of a tempo. As for gambiting the pawn, as white, I almost never try to keep that pawn because it usually leads to awkward development. I agree with penandpaper, it would seem very complicated to keep that stupid pawn. But that's just my assessment from my very little playtime experience.
I play it as my main defense to e4. It's dubious, but fun. There are only a couple of lines in the system I play (which is a mixture of lots of different things, but none of that Icelandic or Portuguese stuff) that I get uncomfortable if I'm forced into, and all are playable, just uncomfortable.
I'm clearly no expert, but the scandi seems dubious unless researched very well. I've committed to English and Sicilian openings as an alternative for e4/e5, and at my level I come across a lot of Anglo-Scandi's and Smith-morra gambits because people just want to get the queen out as fast as possible. That seems to be the only edge of the Scandinavian, queen activity, but usually at the cost of a tempo. As for gambiting the pawn, as white, I almost never try to keep that pawn because it usually leads to awkward development. I agree with penandpaper, it would seem very complicated to keep that stupid pawn. But that's just my assessment from my very little playtime experience.
I play it as my main defense to e4. It's dubious, but fun. There are only a couple of lines in the system I play (which is a mixture of lots of different things, but none of that Icelandic or Portuguese stuff) that I get uncomfortable if I'm forced into, and all are playable, just uncomfortable.
I'm clearly no expert, but the scandi seems dubious unless researched very well. I've committed to English and Sicilian openings as an alternative for e4/e5, and at my level I come across a lot of Anglo-Scandi's and Smith-morra gambits because people just want to get the queen out as fast as possible. That seems to be the only edge of the Scandinavian, queen activity, but usually at the cost of a tempo. As for gambiting the pawn, as white, I almost never try to keep that pawn because it usually leads to awkward development. I agree with penandpaper, it would seem very complicated to keep that stupid pawn. But that's just my assessment from my very little playtime experience.
No offense, but saying the scandinavian defense/gambit is "dubious" (when you are sub-1000 player after over a thousand games)....is not exactly wise. The Bronstein variation of the main line of the scandi is very solid. Also, Magnus Carlsen has played the scandinavian twice against caruana and WON as black.....this is just one example. The scandi is MUCH more aggressive than a french defense, and the gambit lines require some confidence from Black for sure though cheers
No offense but your understanding in chess is no better than his.
And your posts probably the most useless in chess.com if there wasn't Yigor.
Everything you have post till now is a nonsense or a lie.
Do you remember the Mexican attack that Reshevsky as you said played?In another post you say that it's called humiliation attack and Cozlowski developed it in 80's.So you are far more unreliable than anyone despite your rating.
So you criticize not just low-rated players offering advice or even inquiring but high-rated players that may slightly misstate something. Gotcha.
I play it as my main defense to e4. It's dubious, but fun. There are only a couple of lines in the system I play (which is a mixture of lots of different things, but none of that Icelandic or Portuguese stuff) that I get uncomfortable if I'm forced into, and all are playable, just uncomfortable.
The icelandic gambit makes WHITE feel uncomfortable usually....black has a happy game haha
I've just never learned those gambit lines (other than the main gambit, (3.c4 c6)). I'm thinking of picking up the Smerdon book on I think the Portuguese (not sure what all it includes, but I know it's not the stuff I play, which is mostly based around g6 type stuff).
DeirdeSkye typed: "The only ones that respects someone because of his on line rating are ignorants like you.I respect knowledge and this guy has none."
I don't adorn someone with respect for a high online chess rating either.
You have some valid points, but they are often overshadowed by your sneering haughty attitude. You should learn to respectfully disagree with someone or correct him without derision.
On the topic of this thread --- When does it become a 'gambit'? Obviously saccing the c-pawn would count, but the OP implies other lines. At what point would 'reclaiming' the 1-pawn material deficit be effectively wrong thus in official gambit?
I play it as my main defense to e4. It's dubious, but fun. There are only a couple of lines in the system I play (which is a mixture of lots of different things, but none of that Icelandic or Portuguese stuff) that I get uncomfortable if I'm forced into, and all are playable, just uncomfortable.
The Scandinavian GAMBIT is e4 d5 exd c6!.. a true gambit (with murky half compensation ). Good for bullet or 3m though if you know some basic plans.
Everytime you create a thread and somebody gives their opinion you always disrespect it. Why ask if you obviously have on view and are so closed minded to listen
Much more aggressive than the french??! Is this a Joke???? Most lines of the french are quite bloodthirsty. The Scandinavian is not an aggressive opening. The ideas are simple, get a Caro/Slav structure for 100%. the scandinavian is an attempt at an "Improved Caro-Kann" in order to get a solid structure, the idea of both defences. However, while Scandi is more effective at getting the Caro/Slav structure by basically forcing white into a caro/slav and avoiding advanced variation, you lose tempo's and with that, oppurtunitys for attack, which causes a more defensive game in hopes of a superior endgame where you can use you're 4-3 kingsode majority to your advantage. Not saying anything negative about Scandi, it's just your statement is objectively wrong
GM Smerdon, one of the biggest proponents of this line who also wrote a book on it says that the Portuguese gambit is unsound. But it's practical value is pretty good. It's a lot more dangerous than things like the Latvian or Elephant gambit.
Beginners should start with the scandinavian gambit. It teaches them to attack.
The Scandinavian GAMBIT is e4 d5 exd c6!.. a true gambit (with murky half compensation ). Good for bullet or 3m though if you know some basic plans.
The Scandinavian GAMBIT is e4 d5 exd c6!.. a true gambit (with murky half compensation ). Good for bullet or 3m though if you know some basic plans.
Here are some good videos from GM Smerdon. He also published a book about the opening. It should be the newest book about this opening. I really think that it is a good practical weapon. Of course there is some theory but the positions are most of the time easy to understand. Only in critical lines it should be necessary to learn some line but nobody will play like this.
where black plays 2...Nf6, instead of immediately capturing d5 with the queen?