@Cyber_Demon said in #10:
> However, you mentioned that you are using Scandi also as your OTB weapon. Considering that at a certain level people start target prepping against you, especially when you are known to be 'the Scandi guy', this variation might come up more frequently the more classical tournaments you start to play.
Yeah, so what. They can't prepare in one day a position I've been playing for 3 months. When it will be known in databases, that Scandi is my main weapon, I'll have even more experience in it. And right now I have so little opening preparation, it's insane that my score is this good.
> That is one of the reasons why I was always afraid to touch Scandi as Black - I even stopped playing the Caro some years ago as people started playing some weird engine lines against me.
Sort of the reason I also stopped playing the Caro, not exactly that I faced lines I didn't like, but I knew it was bound to happen (especially the Short Variation)
> I agree, Black definitely has some chances in that line but I feel like White has to make quite a few inaccuracies in order for Black to gain back the momentum.
One big inaccuracy is responding with h6 to g6, the most natural, and most common response in many positions. And after that Black has f5 and e5 to which White must respond very accurately to not get a worse position, so while more error is needed from White, there is a lot of room for that error to happen.
Also people don't prep deeply against the Scandi just like that. It's just so impractical, you get Scandi one in 50 games, and Sicilian one in 3. And basic knowledge can get them only so far. I'll simply have much more experience.
And this isn't the only objectively good line, there are other, easier options for White, like Nc3>Bc4>d3>Bd2>Qe2, or Nc3>Nf3>d4>Bc4>Bd2>a3>Qe2, so the uncommonness comes also from it's inpractilality, like you have to learn a brand new position, with basically no similar ideas to other openings.
But who knows, maybe I'll change my mind later in my career, when everyone will be prepped, and will understand the position better than me, but on the other hand, that can also happen in other openings, more rarely, but still
I think the grandmaster consensus is that the aforementioned line is winning for white; Gustafsson has pretty convincing coverage in his 1. e4 course.
Not that I care for policing openings, but a lot of your rejected openings might be considered obvious improvements of the Scandinavian. For example the Alapin with e4 c5 c3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 is literally an improved Scandi. The same could be said about the Caro mainlines with the e6 c6 structure. By comparison, the Scandi is just a waste of 2 or so tempi.
There is definitely some appeal in forcing the issue on move one, but this philosophy cannot be applied to 1. c4 or Nf3 or even 1. d4 really, so it probably isn't the way to approach the opening phase. If anything, I think your win rates show that the Scandi requires the least knowledge of the sample.
"55-39% and 58-36%" What do you mean with those percentages / "win rates", is it win-loss and it doesn't add up to 100% because of draws ? so 6% of draws ?
@Pfel said in #12:
> I think the grandmaster consensus is that the aforementioned line is winning for white; Gustafsson has pretty convincing coverage in his 1. e4 course.
Is it really a forced win? If so, which I find hard to believe, I'm lucky I'm not a grandmaster yet :p
> Not that I care for policing openings, but a lot of your rejected openings might be considered obvious improvements of the Scandinavian. For example the Alapin with e4 c5 c3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 is literally an improved Scandi. The same could be said about the Caro mainlines with the e6 c6 structure. By comparison, the Scandi is just a waste of 2 or so tempi.
If you compare engine lines then yeah, your conclusion isn't wrong. But I'm not playing engines, I'm playing humans, and the ways White can go wrong in Alapin or Caro together aren't close to what White can do wrong in the Scandi
> There is definitely some appeal in forcing the issue on move one, but this philosophy cannot be applied to 1. c4 or Nf3 or even 1. d4 really, so it probably isn't the way to approach the opening phase. If anything, I think your win rates show that the Scandi requires the least knowledge of the sample.
Just because an opening requires little knowledge, doesn't mean it will have a high score, I don't get that argument. High winrate comes from my opponents making more mistakes than in other lines, and me exploiting them more.
in d4 d5 I score 47-45%, in c4 e5 44-46%, in Nf3 d5 44-45%. In those openings White can do whatever, and still not get a worse position. In the Scandi that's not the case
A great example is the Freak Attack, while engines claim equality, the score reflects how difficult the position is. I score 64-30% there
@lecw said in #13:
> "55-39% and 58-36%" What do you mean with those percentages / "win rates", is it win-loss and it doesn't add up to 100% because of draws ? so 6% of draws ?
yeah, 55-39% would be 55% games won, 39% games lost, and 6% games drawn
@CkickyCheck said in #11:
> Yeah, so what. They can't prepare in one day a position I've been playing for 3 months. When it will be known in databases, that Scandi is my main weapon, I'll have even more experience in it. And right now I have so little opening preparation, it's insane that my score is this good.
Well, the thing is, that position is just a reverse Carlsbad structure where White has gotten 3-4 tempi ahead with his pawns and claimed the bishop pair. Most people who play either the QGD, the Caro or who used to play the Queens Gambit know that type of position probably better than you as it's reached much less frequently in the Scandi.
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just saying you would probably do yourself a favor being less predictable in OTB games. I prepare every game with the database and the engine. My most favorite opponents are the ones who play the same line over and over as I can be sure they will totally run in my prep. And most of the time it's possible to introduce some kind of idea that they haven't seen before so White is +1 and has the fresher memory of the plans in this position.
Edit: For example the Exchange Caro with White you also get the same structure but with many less favorable aspects for White (no extra tempi, no bishop pair advantage), yet White still scores pretty well there following the mainline.
> If you compare engine lines then yeah, your conclusion isn't wrong. But I'm not playing engines, I'm playing humans, and the ways White can go wrong in Alapin or Caro together aren't close to what White can do wrong in the Scandi
Nothing to do with the engine. Simply, you can get the Scandi structure (under much better circumstances) in the usual openings. If white plays some calm moves, black is stuck playing a bad version of the Caro or Alapin or Alekhine or Grunfeld or something. Moving the queen around just wastes tempi.
> Just because an opening requires little knowledge, doesn't mean it will have a high score, I don't get that argument. High winrate comes from my opponents making more mistakes than in other lines, and me exploiting them more.
This was unclear on my part. I meant that of course you would score fantastically in any opening if you learned it well. Mainline openings just require a deeper knowledge, though in return you'll get much better positions. Likewise, if white studied aptly then they could more or less refute your line.
>A great example is the Freak Attack, while engines claim equality, the score reflects how difficult the position is. I score 64-30% there
Lol the position is difficult assuming your opponent has no idea what he is doing. This is exactly what I mean. With proper understanding the difficulties can be usurped.
@CkickyCheck said in #7:
> so now we are in blacmkar-diemer with 3... Nf6. If 4. f3 Bf5 sorfot counters this gambit, in the sense, that White doesn't get the lead in development, and Black still maintains some advantage. 4. Bg5 is more interesting I think, but I havent faced it yet (or at leasst i don't remember)
yep 4. Bg5 and its a new game but now i dont know if that plays more into your hands vs staying in scandi lol
but to each their own, you found something works for you and your style now is whats important...
french defense - idk if youre looking for a novelty right away, but maybe steiner variation - 1. e4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 exd5 4. exd5 Qxd5... wait a minute, this looks familiar ... a delayed scand!?
I love your posts. Always entertaining.
Have you gathered some experience with the Modern Scandi? Or have you ruled that one out for a reason, already? As white I have a tougher task usually with 2. ... Nf6. But I am 1800 Fide at best and play Rapid only.
@KermitCarter said in #18:
> I love your posts. Always entertaining.
Thank you so much :)
> Have you gathered some experience with the Modern Scandi? Or have you ruled that one out for a reason, already?
Ive never ayed that with Black, it's boring, and you have to learn all c4 and Bb5+ lines, where you can quicky go wrong and simply be down a pawn.
For White I play 3. d4 hoping for a portuguese gambit (3... Bg4), which is refuted with 4. f3 Bf5 5. g4 Bg6 6. c4 e6 7. Nc3 exd5 8. g5 Nh5 9. f4 with f5 next winning a piece, just an example line
But after 3... Nxd5 I just cry. I don't know how White can launch an attack at such a flexible position. At least not yet
Great article @CkickyCheck ! Thanks for sharing your experience!