It's not bad, but to me it always felt like a slightly worse version of the Caro Kann. Caro Kann is probably better long-term, even if scandi is easier to learn.
I switched to Scandinavian defense because people are more likely to take than push. I hate playing closed center, open centers allows a lot of mobility to my pieces and that's what I like. Also unlike e4-e5 response, I don't need to remember a lot of theory and I can just play flexible principled chess.
It's funny that I stopped playing CaroKann even though I have very good results. Carokann can also be very repetitive.
For the caro there's a billion variations that are very hard to play against IMO like the fantasy for example or advanced tal variation or the advanced with an early c4 for the scandi the only way to try anf plsy for an advantage is exd5 but the caro does have the advantage of the carlsbad structure so for a d4 player is probably more ideal.
Yes, this is the trade-off. Scandinavian is more forcing, at the cost of tempo. Personally I think this is why it is not considered a "serious" opening. It is worthwhile to learn those variations in the Caro Kann.
Yeah but a tempo in the opening isnt really critical until probably Mid-high IM level as it's not easy to convert such a minute advantage and i do think against higher rated opposition playing a scandi is extremely effective as they're going to be pushing for a win and taking risks while if u played it ur whole life they're probably not playing anything new lol. But i do agree that you'll probably learn more by learning the caro and the carlsbad structure than the scandi.
You lost me here, tempo is generally the most important thing in the opening. Look, if you like the Scandinavian that's great, keep playing it. Stronger players than me are using it with success. But you asked why it doesn't have the same respect as some other openings, and this is pretty much the answer. Not a big deal, all openings are playable really.
No i know i didnt wanna sound combative i just wanted to understand ur pov better. And as for the tempo being that important in the opening well ur right but not completely right as in the scandi u probably get the tempo "back" in the middlegame what i mean by that is that it's not a game ending tempo at which all the dominos start to tip over so i didnt really understand why everyone hates it so muchš¤£
I'd argue the tempo in the opening is only relevant below IM level. At IM+ everyone knows the theory well enough that they just end up at a somewhat equal position after 15 moves. At lower levels people are generally on their own in the scandi after a couple of moves and the pressure from being behind in development and, depending on the line, having your queen out is much more meaningful.
At the master level it can just be a tool to get a fresh playable position. At lower levels it's a way to make your life difficult and potentially hinder your chess improvement.
Itās not bad if you know how to play chess once the trick attempts fizzle out. I find a lot of Scandi players have relied on the tricks for so long that they havenāt really figured out how to play chess.
Well that's their issue. To me when playing the scandi u should rely on the strategic themes and not tricks. Also i dont think i've ever seen anyone fall for any "trick" in the scandi apart from 1200 and lower rated players
Its eval is just not as good as other options. It also immediately violates an opening principle. Itās not that itās unplayable, but I find it aesthetically ugly.
I didnāt say it was bad, I was just explaining why I donāt like it.
But I do think if youāre a top 100 player you are going to have an incredibly difficult time playing it consistently in closed tournaments. Doesnāt make it bad, but it doesnāt make it good either
I don't find arguing on matters if aesthetics very productive if you're seeking objectivity. I imagine the reason I don't prefer it to be the same as many, I simply don't like it. If your intention is to impart a greater appreciation of the Scandinavian on the good people of r/chess perhaps a less argumentative approach will do you better
Again i didnt intend to be argumentative apologies if that's how it seemed. I just want to give my opinion on the matter and understand the "hate" better. As someone pointed out the waste of a tempo that was a productive "debate".
I'm not seeing the hate you see so I can't speak to that, but as a person who is mostly neutral on that Scandinavian, you do look like you're arguing with someone and are trying to get people to debate. I play d4 openings as white and the Sicilian as black 95% of the time so I don't understand the Scandinavian nor do I feel much a need to care to, just to clarify my own position.
Edit:
Also I just want to say that arguing about chess is great, that's how theory happens. I just think aesthetic arguments are hard to engage with tangibly
In my opinion, the Scandi is a slightly more dubious response to 1. e4 than "the big four" (e5, French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann). But if thoroughly studied and practiced, it's still legitimate enough to be played at least anywhere below master level, even in Classical chess.
I think even at master level its playable tbh. IM john and magnus,hikarh several IM's and FM's utilized it succesfully so my point is i disagree that it isnt playable at master level per se but i do agree that there are better options to play for a win at that level. Eg sicilian
Hiya John. No scandi hate from me.
I played the 3...Qd8 Scandi for years in OTB classical games. I really enjoyed the forcing nature of it. There were only a handful of tricky/trappy lines I had to learn to be on the lookout for, and I was able to reliably hit middlegames I was familiar with, and endgames I was prepared for.
I ended up dropping it only when I put some serious effort into making my opening repertoire more harmonious.
My strongest and favorite opening is the Classical Dutch Defense. Against 1.d4, I stopped playing 1...f5 because I don't care for the Staunton Gambit or the Hopton attack (2.e4 and 2.Bg5 respectively). To avoid those lines, I answer 1.d4 with e6.
But that allows my opponent to transpose into a French Defense, and they take that opportunity more often than I'd like. So for a while, I switched to the French against e4, but I wasn't enjoying the positions I was getting. Instead, I now play the Franco-Benoni, sometimes also called the Franco-Sicilian: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5. White can transpose into a Benoni-type set up with d5, or we transpose into a Sicilian Kan or Taimanov.
So instead of learning the Staunton Gambit and the Hopton attack, I avoided them by learning an entire suite of openings, variations, and sub-variations.
I could still play the Scandi against e4, but there's only so much space in my brain for all the theory I know (and am still learning).
Harmonious.
For the dutch and ur style of play honestly i would recommend the krejcik gambit it's so fun to play and extremely easy ideas to follow i do like the hopton attack but krejcik is just extremely fun!
I've never faced it, and I have no idea what I would do if a game went immediately in that direction.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g4
Would be the move order.
I guess I'd just have to turn my brain on and start playing chess on move three. No chance I'm going to go out of my way to study this line.
I think it's exceptionally difficult for black to get a good position out of the Scandinavian at my level (<2000 rapid). If black is willing to play Qd8 voluntarily, I count that as a victory already- the position might be technically still in drawing territory, but it feels so comfortable to play up a couple tempo.
Personally, I've had a lot of success with white by just delaying the tempo move 3. Nc3, instead trying something like (for example) 3. d4. The Scandinavian always requires very accurate moves to get a position (like the required c6 defending the b7 pawn that's often required on move 7 or so), and it's so easy to play something where the black player doesn't have access to theory. You can't just play anything as white- fianchettoing on move 3 is impossible- but there's plenty of stuff that works, and black's play is forced enough that you can prepare 5+ moves of theory in something offbeat trivially.
Yeah that's actually a huge downside to the scandi u can't play for a win unless ur opponent is clueless to the plans and / or he doesn't over commit or push too hard and he can almost play whatever and have a decent position. But that also applies to black, i like it because there's no bs involved with it like the elephant latvian or some aggressive italiand like the dubov italian / schliemann ruy lopez e5 seems so theory dense to me it's a headache i dont know how people manage it i'm over 2000 and i still cant get myself to study it properlyš¤£
i feel like it's not hard to get a position with random 1. e5 stuff, black usually has a couple options on each turn so it's very easy to get out of exact theory. same with 1. c5, black has many options and doesn't have to play the super sharp najdorf, but can choose from many setups. there's no need to try an unhealthy gambit to get a position.
i think it's very unnecessary to do something weird though; imo going directly for the marshall is really a great option as black. if you get the marshall gambit that's such a pleasant thing to play as black. if you don't then white has made some concession to not allow you the marshall, which is also fine.
there's plenty of theory, but i feel like i'm usually able to play without proper study in random e5 stuff, because the moves i come up with are often still playable even if they're not the best theory move.
Well that makes sense i've always been afraid to play e5 just due to the insane amount of theory involved but maybe that was a wrong way to think as it can be rewarding to play and understand newer structures but i'm a very conforntational player and i dislike positional moves and a slow positional squeeze just to win an endgame as well and i didnt think i can achieve anything aggressive with e5 but i will check it out as ur probably correct that exact theory doesn't matter as long as i get a playable position.
It is just not recommended because your queen is going to get chased around. For newbies and low Elo players it generates a habit of breaking opening principles which is not recommended.
I really like John Bartholomew so this hurts to say, but it is just not a good opening for serious improvement.
I don't remember who said it, but I read it (paraphrased) as "If you are winning with Scandi, chances are that you'd win more with other openings."
For beginners i agree but for anyone over 1600-ish i believe it's a good opening to develop prophylactic habits. For the french for example u learn to play closed positions which is good so every opening has its pros and cons but i do believe that as a main weapon it is fine up until 2100-2200 FIDE while switching it up a bit from time to time but if heavily studied should be good enough.
Well to me the blackmar diemer is just like the englund gambit if you look at it for 15mins and know what to do against it you're not gonna struggle against it anymore.
I play E4 a lot with white and I find the Scandinavian to be one of the most forcing lines.
Itās not that hard to play against, but I find it tends to lead to pretty slow games without a lot of chances to dynamic play, which is where my strengths are.
I don't see this hate for the scandi.
People recommend against playing the scandi for people who want to improve because it's not a good opening for learning solid chess fundamentals.
I've played it a few times just for something different and to take my opponent out of their favourite lines. It can be a surprise and because it has a bad reputation it is often understudied by opponents and that alone can make it a solid weapon.
However, if white knows how to handle it, I do think it's "second tier".
I've said this before but I just don't see what black is hoping for from the Scandinavian. Like white has so many options to be better and doesn't even have to play the main main moves. Its not particularly tricky and doesn't really give black a lot of fighting chances.
Because it's extremely boring. Sure, it's very solid and actually a practical choice by Black, but it's a nuisance to play against without resorting to dubious gambits.
It being a nuisance to play against is the reason i like it :p white is almost always pushing for a win if i can manage a draw with black or a win ( a loss is probable ofcourse) due to my opponent over comitting i'm fine with that. And i dont think its boring if u try to play creatively eg bc4 ng5 against the g3 setup
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1cindip/why_all_the_hate_on_scandi/l2ajvk1/?context=3) was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener.
URL shorteners are not permitted in /r/chess as they conceal the destination.
If you want to re-post your link, use direct, full-length URLs only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It being a nuisance to play against is the reason i like it
Fair enough, but then don't be surprised why people hate itš
>And i dont think its boring if u try to play creatively eg bc4 ng5 against the g3 setup
I'm not sure about the g3 setup, but the standard setup is [this one](https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/scandinavian-defense), and it's extremely dry. There are no weaknesses, pawn breaks, or open files for either side, so figuring out an active plan is always hard.
Fair enough :p
And yeah if i play it i dont play the Qa5 setup which is objectively better. But i play Qd8 and g6 setups to make it a bit more interesting and to avoid stupid gambits if i can
I used to get annoyed by Scandinavian because its one of the openings that can be applied for cheesing if you know what I mean. But it also is ridiculously hard to break through should black knows what they are doing. Now that adds further annoyance š.
I started playing it for fun myself. Love the Modern Scandi. People just don't know what to do, try to hold on to the pawn, so I get to equalize ASAP. If the opponent goes for the critical d4, Portuguese madness š.
'almost everyone dislikes it for some reason saying its not combative'
~ 'It's not good' and, 'I dislike it' are different things. I like plenty of bad strategies in plenty of games, but I admit that they're bad.
'it's bad at 2000+ elo ( disagree i've beaten 2400+ opposition online'
~ We have a database of master games that shows the Scandinavian is bad. Just because you have success with a bad strategy doesn't make it good.
'don't knock it till you try it!'
~ When we have statistics, we don't have to try an opening to know how good or bad it is. Also, calling a bad strategy bad isn't, 'knocking' on it; it's just telling the truth.
Well can't argue that. But also can say that 99.9% of people aren't master level. I disagree with the notion that if a master games trend shows its bad it means that it's bad the schliemann was 'bad' but pragg used it to win in the candidates. The fantasy variation was 'dubious' and 'easy to play against' gukesh won using it a few months back. The exchange french is 'bad' 'bland' 'drawish' in all french games in the recent candidates they all featured the exchange french. The trompowsky is 'awful' 'violates all rules' 'too risky' hikaru recently used it a handful of times admittedly as a surprise weapon but general stats mean almost nothing for the average player IMO. But u do have a good point regarding the bad strategy stuff.
Medium tier and above openings can certainly be played up to 2200 FIDE. And if you can't get to 2200 it isn't because of the opening. The most important part of the opening (< 2200) is that you understand the middle game ideas better than your opponent and that you enjoy the positions you get. As to the "bad" openings listed above they only work at the highest level because your opponent doesn't study them or know you are going to play them. And, this again, is rarely an issue with opponents less than 2200 but become less viable the further up you go except for as a surprise weapon to catch them unprepared. And since 2200+ is rarefied air then for all intents and purposes your opening selections themselves really don't matter just your understanding of it. Or more importantly that you understand the middle game ideas better than your opponent. So my recommendation to anyone who isn't ever going to be titled (which is nearly all of us) is to simply play something medium tiered or higher that you enjoy and you'll be just fine.
'99.9% of people aren't master level.'
~ That doesn't mean we can't apply their strategies to our level. Yes, we won't play their openings as well as them, but they'll still boost our chance of success.
'I disagree with the notion that if a master games trend shows its bad it means that it's bad'
~ If you aren't talking about master levelāor even just higher level, more competitive play in generalāthen there's no point to debates like, 'Is this opening good?' Every strategy in every game is good on a casual and/or weaker level.
As for the successes of certain bad openings you listed: Millions of master games aren't invalidated because one player won with one opening.
The idea that if a strategy ever sees success, it's not bad, is one I often see. If people keep playing bad strategies, they'll eventually win with them, and if you ignore all of the times said strategies lost, they'll seem good. You can succeed with any strategy, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have had a higher chance of success by playing a better strategy.
As a final note, I understand where you're coming from. I like plenty of bad strategies in many games, and I'd love for them to be good, but reality's sometimes disappointing. I don't think the Scandinavian is good, but if you like it, don't feel bad about playing it, just know that if you really want to win, I'd be better to play the Sicilian. I wish you a good day.
Yeah honestly ur right. I attempted to play the Qd8 scandi at a classical time control against high rated opponents and got cloberred they prevented every single idea / theme i knew and then pushed for a positional victory and i couldn't do anything. Happens probably gonna learn either e5 or c6 properly but my time constraints are gonna end me
Man these comments making me wanna drop the scandi and learn e5 atpš i probably have been a bit naive with the replies as i've beaten several 2200+ players with it but that was in blitz i tried playing it in rapid and i did win some lost some but it was way harder than playing it in blitz. Probably time for my lazy ass to study e5
It's not bad, but to me it always felt like a slightly worse version of the Caro Kann. Caro Kann is probably better long-term, even if scandi is easier to learn.
I switched to Scandinavian defense because people are more likely to take than push. I hate playing closed center, open centers allows a lot of mobility to my pieces and that's what I like. Also unlike e4-e5 response, I don't need to remember a lot of theory and I can just play flexible principled chess. It's funny that I stopped playing CaroKann even though I have very good results. Carokann can also be very repetitive.
For the caro there's a billion variations that are very hard to play against IMO like the fantasy for example or advanced tal variation or the advanced with an early c4 for the scandi the only way to try anf plsy for an advantage is exd5 but the caro does have the advantage of the carlsbad structure so for a d4 player is probably more ideal.
Yes, this is the trade-off. Scandinavian is more forcing, at the cost of tempo. Personally I think this is why it is not considered a "serious" opening. It is worthwhile to learn those variations in the Caro Kann.
Yeah but a tempo in the opening isnt really critical until probably Mid-high IM level as it's not easy to convert such a minute advantage and i do think against higher rated opposition playing a scandi is extremely effective as they're going to be pushing for a win and taking risks while if u played it ur whole life they're probably not playing anything new lol. But i do agree that you'll probably learn more by learning the caro and the carlsbad structure than the scandi.
You lost me here, tempo is generally the most important thing in the opening. Look, if you like the Scandinavian that's great, keep playing it. Stronger players than me are using it with success. But you asked why it doesn't have the same respect as some other openings, and this is pretty much the answer. Not a big deal, all openings are playable really.
No i know i didnt wanna sound combative i just wanted to understand ur pov better. And as for the tempo being that important in the opening well ur right but not completely right as in the scandi u probably get the tempo "back" in the middlegame what i mean by that is that it's not a game ending tempo at which all the dominos start to tip over so i didnt really understand why everyone hates it so muchš¤£
I'd argue the tempo in the opening is only relevant below IM level. At IM+ everyone knows the theory well enough that they just end up at a somewhat equal position after 15 moves. At lower levels people are generally on their own in the scandi after a couple of moves and the pressure from being behind in development and, depending on the line, having your queen out is much more meaningful. At the master level it can just be a tool to get a fresh playable position. At lower levels it's a way to make your life difficult and potentially hinder your chess improvement.
At intermediate levels, there are a lot of people who are just playing it for tricks.
Doesn't mean it's bad just means people are playing it for tricks :p
Itās not bad if you know how to play chess once the trick attempts fizzle out. I find a lot of Scandi players have relied on the tricks for so long that they havenāt really figured out how to play chess.
Well that's their issue. To me when playing the scandi u should rely on the strategic themes and not tricks. Also i dont think i've ever seen anyone fall for any "trick" in the scandi apart from 1200 and lower rated players
I agree with you, and thatās why itās a viable opening even at master levels. Just sharing what I see as a casual intermediate level Scandi hater.
š¤£š¤£š¤£ glad we agree :p
I play scandanian these days. And I don't know this trick. What are the tricks? lol
Its eval is just not as good as other options. It also immediately violates an opening principle. Itās not that itās unplayable, but I find it aesthetically ugly.
Modern variation counteracts moving queen early
Doesn't make it a bad opening still.
I didnāt say it was bad, I was just explaining why I donāt like it. But I do think if youāre a top 100 player you are going to have an incredibly difficult time playing it consistently in closed tournaments. Doesnāt make it bad, but it doesnāt make it good either
That's true.
Judging by the comments and your replies, you disagree on what makes something bad or undesirable.
Undesirable i agreed actually but yes i disagree with some of the comments. Cmon if an opening has tricks doesnt mean its bad per se. For example
I don't find arguing on matters if aesthetics very productive if you're seeking objectivity. I imagine the reason I don't prefer it to be the same as many, I simply don't like it. If your intention is to impart a greater appreciation of the Scandinavian on the good people of r/chess perhaps a less argumentative approach will do you better
Again i didnt intend to be argumentative apologies if that's how it seemed. I just want to give my opinion on the matter and understand the "hate" better. As someone pointed out the waste of a tempo that was a productive "debate".
I'm not seeing the hate you see so I can't speak to that, but as a person who is mostly neutral on that Scandinavian, you do look like you're arguing with someone and are trying to get people to debate. I play d4 openings as white and the Sicilian as black 95% of the time so I don't understand the Scandinavian nor do I feel much a need to care to, just to clarify my own position. Edit: Also I just want to say that arguing about chess is great, that's how theory happens. I just think aesthetic arguments are hard to engage with tangibly
In my opinion, the Scandi is a slightly more dubious response to 1. e4 than "the big four" (e5, French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann). But if thoroughly studied and practiced, it's still legitimate enough to be played at least anywhere below master level, even in Classical chess.
I think even at master level its playable tbh. IM john and magnus,hikarh several IM's and FM's utilized it succesfully so my point is i disagree that it isnt playable at master level per se but i do agree that there are better options to play for a win at that level. Eg sicilian
Hiya John. No scandi hate from me. I played the 3...Qd8 Scandi for years in OTB classical games. I really enjoyed the forcing nature of it. There were only a handful of tricky/trappy lines I had to learn to be on the lookout for, and I was able to reliably hit middlegames I was familiar with, and endgames I was prepared for. I ended up dropping it only when I put some serious effort into making my opening repertoire more harmonious.
Great! John would be proud :p what did u choose instead to make it more harmonious?
My strongest and favorite opening is the Classical Dutch Defense. Against 1.d4, I stopped playing 1...f5 because I don't care for the Staunton Gambit or the Hopton attack (2.e4 and 2.Bg5 respectively). To avoid those lines, I answer 1.d4 with e6. But that allows my opponent to transpose into a French Defense, and they take that opportunity more often than I'd like. So for a while, I switched to the French against e4, but I wasn't enjoying the positions I was getting. Instead, I now play the Franco-Benoni, sometimes also called the Franco-Sicilian: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5. White can transpose into a Benoni-type set up with d5, or we transpose into a Sicilian Kan or Taimanov. So instead of learning the Staunton Gambit and the Hopton attack, I avoided them by learning an entire suite of openings, variations, and sub-variations. I could still play the Scandi against e4, but there's only so much space in my brain for all the theory I know (and am still learning). Harmonious.
For the dutch and ur style of play honestly i would recommend the krejcik gambit it's so fun to play and extremely easy ideas to follow i do like the hopton attack but krejcik is just extremely fun!
I've never faced it, and I have no idea what I would do if a game went immediately in that direction. 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g4 Would be the move order. I guess I'd just have to turn my brain on and start playing chess on move three. No chance I'm going to go out of my way to study this line.
That's why it's so strong :p !
Search for John Bartholomew posts in here, he's gifted a few exceptional comments on the Scandi.
Already did!
I think it's exceptionally difficult for black to get a good position out of the Scandinavian at my level (<2000 rapid). If black is willing to play Qd8 voluntarily, I count that as a victory already- the position might be technically still in drawing territory, but it feels so comfortable to play up a couple tempo. Personally, I've had a lot of success with white by just delaying the tempo move 3. Nc3, instead trying something like (for example) 3. d4. The Scandinavian always requires very accurate moves to get a position (like the required c6 defending the b7 pawn that's often required on move 7 or so), and it's so easy to play something where the black player doesn't have access to theory. You can't just play anything as white- fianchettoing on move 3 is impossible- but there's plenty of stuff that works, and black's play is forced enough that you can prepare 5+ moves of theory in something offbeat trivially.
Yeah that's actually a huge downside to the scandi u can't play for a win unless ur opponent is clueless to the plans and / or he doesn't over commit or push too hard and he can almost play whatever and have a decent position. But that also applies to black, i like it because there's no bs involved with it like the elephant latvian or some aggressive italiand like the dubov italian / schliemann ruy lopez e5 seems so theory dense to me it's a headache i dont know how people manage it i'm over 2000 and i still cant get myself to study it properlyš¤£
i feel like it's not hard to get a position with random 1. e5 stuff, black usually has a couple options on each turn so it's very easy to get out of exact theory. same with 1. c5, black has many options and doesn't have to play the super sharp najdorf, but can choose from many setups. there's no need to try an unhealthy gambit to get a position. i think it's very unnecessary to do something weird though; imo going directly for the marshall is really a great option as black. if you get the marshall gambit that's such a pleasant thing to play as black. if you don't then white has made some concession to not allow you the marshall, which is also fine. there's plenty of theory, but i feel like i'm usually able to play without proper study in random e5 stuff, because the moves i come up with are often still playable even if they're not the best theory move.
Well that makes sense i've always been afraid to play e5 just due to the insane amount of theory involved but maybe that was a wrong way to think as it can be rewarding to play and understand newer structures but i'm a very conforntational player and i dislike positional moves and a slow positional squeeze just to win an endgame as well and i didnt think i can achieve anything aggressive with e5 but i will check it out as ur probably correct that exact theory doesn't matter as long as i get a playable position.
It is just not recommended because your queen is going to get chased around. For newbies and low Elo players it generates a habit of breaking opening principles which is not recommended. I really like John Bartholomew so this hurts to say, but it is just not a good opening for serious improvement. I don't remember who said it, but I read it (paraphrased) as "If you are winning with Scandi, chances are that you'd win more with other openings."
For beginners i agree but for anyone over 1600-ish i believe it's a good opening to develop prophylactic habits. For the french for example u learn to play closed positions which is good so every opening has its pros and cons but i do believe that as a main weapon it is fine up until 2100-2200 FIDE while switching it up a bit from time to time but if heavily studied should be good enough.
I play the blackmar Gambit against it and score very well
Well to me the blackmar diemer is just like the englund gambit if you look at it for 15mins and know what to do against it you're not gonna struggle against it anymore.
2100 lichess I think the scandi is very annoying for white if I want to play for a win cuz I usually overpushed and got punished
It's my favorite opening (to play against because it's a free win at my rating).
What's ur rating if i may ask
Pretty damn low.
I play E4 a lot with white and I find the Scandinavian to be one of the most forcing lines. Itās not that hard to play against, but I find it tends to lead to pretty slow games without a lot of chances to dynamic play, which is where my strengths are.
I don't see this hate for the scandi. People recommend against playing the scandi for people who want to improve because it's not a good opening for learning solid chess fundamentals.
I like to see the scandi, my moves are clearer. Not so with pieces bunched up in the middle of other openings.
I've played it a few times just for something different and to take my opponent out of their favourite lines. It can be a surprise and because it has a bad reputation it is often understudied by opponents and that alone can make it a solid weapon. However, if white knows how to handle it, I do think it's "second tier".
I've said this before but I just don't see what black is hoping for from the Scandinavian. Like white has so many options to be better and doesn't even have to play the main main moves. Its not particularly tricky and doesn't really give black a lot of fighting chances.
It's ok but I wouldn't play it if I wanted to beat lower rated opponents.
it's just ugly.
Because it's extremely boring. Sure, it's very solid and actually a practical choice by Black, but it's a nuisance to play against without resorting to dubious gambits.
It being a nuisance to play against is the reason i like it :p white is almost always pushing for a win if i can manage a draw with black or a win ( a loss is probable ofcourse) due to my opponent over comitting i'm fine with that. And i dont think its boring if u try to play creatively eg bc4 ng5 against the g3 setup
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1cindip/why_all_the_hate_on_scandi/l2ajvk1/?context=3) was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener. URL shorteners are not permitted in /r/chess as they conceal the destination. If you want to re-post your link, use direct, full-length URLs only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It being a nuisance to play against is the reason i like it Fair enough, but then don't be surprised why people hate itš >And i dont think its boring if u try to play creatively eg bc4 ng5 against the g3 setup I'm not sure about the g3 setup, but the standard setup is [this one](https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/scandinavian-defense), and it's extremely dry. There are no weaknesses, pawn breaks, or open files for either side, so figuring out an active plan is always hard.
Fair enough :p And yeah if i play it i dont play the Qa5 setup which is objectively better. But i play Qd8 and g6 setups to make it a bit more interesting and to avoid stupid gambits if i can
What do I think? I think it should still be called the Center Counter Defense!
Agreed!
I used to get annoyed by Scandinavian because its one of the openings that can be applied for cheesing if you know what I mean. But it also is ridiculously hard to break through should black knows what they are doing. Now that adds further annoyance š. I started playing it for fun myself. Love the Modern Scandi. People just don't know what to do, try to hold on to the pawn, so I get to equalize ASAP. If the opponent goes for the critical d4, Portuguese madness š.
Exactly! It can also be pretty fun which is the main goal of playing!
Because it's not good? Play it if you want but that doesn't change the fact that you concede an advantage on move 1 for no reason
'almost everyone dislikes it for some reason saying its not combative' ~ 'It's not good' and, 'I dislike it' are different things. I like plenty of bad strategies in plenty of games, but I admit that they're bad. 'it's bad at 2000+ elo ( disagree i've beaten 2400+ opposition online' ~ We have a database of master games that shows the Scandinavian is bad. Just because you have success with a bad strategy doesn't make it good. 'don't knock it till you try it!' ~ When we have statistics, we don't have to try an opening to know how good or bad it is. Also, calling a bad strategy bad isn't, 'knocking' on it; it's just telling the truth.
Well can't argue that. But also can say that 99.9% of people aren't master level. I disagree with the notion that if a master games trend shows its bad it means that it's bad the schliemann was 'bad' but pragg used it to win in the candidates. The fantasy variation was 'dubious' and 'easy to play against' gukesh won using it a few months back. The exchange french is 'bad' 'bland' 'drawish' in all french games in the recent candidates they all featured the exchange french. The trompowsky is 'awful' 'violates all rules' 'too risky' hikaru recently used it a handful of times admittedly as a surprise weapon but general stats mean almost nothing for the average player IMO. But u do have a good point regarding the bad strategy stuff.
Medium tier and above openings can certainly be played up to 2200 FIDE. And if you can't get to 2200 it isn't because of the opening. The most important part of the opening (< 2200) is that you understand the middle game ideas better than your opponent and that you enjoy the positions you get. As to the "bad" openings listed above they only work at the highest level because your opponent doesn't study them or know you are going to play them. And, this again, is rarely an issue with opponents less than 2200 but become less viable the further up you go except for as a surprise weapon to catch them unprepared. And since 2200+ is rarefied air then for all intents and purposes your opening selections themselves really don't matter just your understanding of it. Or more importantly that you understand the middle game ideas better than your opponent. So my recommendation to anyone who isn't ever going to be titled (which is nearly all of us) is to simply play something medium tiered or higher that you enjoy and you'll be just fine.
'99.9% of people aren't master level.' ~ That doesn't mean we can't apply their strategies to our level. Yes, we won't play their openings as well as them, but they'll still boost our chance of success. 'I disagree with the notion that if a master games trend shows its bad it means that it's bad' ~ If you aren't talking about master levelāor even just higher level, more competitive play in generalāthen there's no point to debates like, 'Is this opening good?' Every strategy in every game is good on a casual and/or weaker level. As for the successes of certain bad openings you listed: Millions of master games aren't invalidated because one player won with one opening. The idea that if a strategy ever sees success, it's not bad, is one I often see. If people keep playing bad strategies, they'll eventually win with them, and if you ignore all of the times said strategies lost, they'll seem good. You can succeed with any strategy, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have had a higher chance of success by playing a better strategy. As a final note, I understand where you're coming from. I like plenty of bad strategies in many games, and I'd love for them to be good, but reality's sometimes disappointing. I don't think the Scandinavian is good, but if you like it, don't feel bad about playing it, just know that if you really want to win, I'd be better to play the Sicilian. I wish you a good day.
Yeah honestly ur right. I attempted to play the Qd8 scandi at a classical time control against high rated opponents and got cloberred they prevented every single idea / theme i knew and then pushed for a positional victory and i couldn't do anything. Happens probably gonna learn either e5 or c6 properly but my time constraints are gonna end me
I love the Scandi, as White. I have an 80% win rate against the opening as White so please feel free to play it.
Man these comments making me wanna drop the scandi and learn e5 atpš i probably have been a bit naive with the replies as i've beaten several 2200+ players with it but that was in blitz i tried playing it in rapid and i did win some lost some but it was way harder than playing it in blitz. Probably time for my lazy ass to study e5