In the Scandinavian, Marshall variation 1.e4 d5 2.ed Nf6 3.d4 Nxd5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.h3 Bxf3 6.Qxf3 c6 was eventually drawn in M.Carlsen v N.Short 2010. Post #8 below, back in 2004, speaks to the issue of giving up the bishop pair so early, but that is the only mention of this subvariation (after 5...Bxf3) I could find in any ChessPub forum. Along with Short's 6...c6, I've been wondering if 6...e6 or even the ambitious 6...Nc6 could be sound enough, especially below GM level.

So my question boils down to can 6...c6, 6...e6 or 6...Nc6 (or some other move) make 5...Bxf3 sound?

What is wrong with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 4.Nf3 Qxd5 5.Nc3 and now Qf5!? or Qh5!?

@ alumbrado

You are right of course. But that is what the
Scandinavian Marshall is about - more space
against active piece play. So 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Be2
will not scare Black off. Though I must admit that
I lost once: 3.d4 Nxd5 4.Nf3 Bf5 5.Be2 e6 6.o-o Be7
7.a3 o-o 8.c4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Ne4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4
11.Re1 c5!? (I like this move in this opening, but
it is too risky here) 12.Bf1 Bg6 13.dxc5 Qxd1
14.Rxd1 Bf6 15.g4 h6 16.h4 De Veth-MNB, corr
1998. Now I would prefer 11.. a5.
Moreover, there is still 3.Bb5+ Nbd7 and after the solid 4.Nc3 g6!? looks very playable. Black should not play a6
too soon, as the bishop is not that strong on b5.

@ kreindl

As I gave up the Bg4 lines long ago, I just
digged in my old notes.
a1) 7.h3 I was thinking of (by transposition)
      Suetin-Gipslis, Minsk 1993. But Stenner-
      Maas, Hamburg 1992, might show how to
      handle this as Black.
a2) 7.Bg5 and Harman/Taulbut rate Varlamov-
     Shulman, Leningrad 1979 in their 1993 book
      as equal. I do not agree, but I also know a
      game Korelov-Goldenberg, corr 1992 which
      went h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7. This line should
      be put more in practice, I guess.
b)    If your recommendation is 5.h3 Bxf3 I will not
      change my mind about this system. Giving up
      the pair of bishops that soon .... brrr.
c)    Yes, I agree: 5.Be2 Nc6 6.o-o e6 7.c4 Nb6
       8.Nc3 Bxf3 9.Lxf3 Nxc4 is playable.

So everyone agrees that 3.d4 Nxd5 4.Nf3 Bf5 5.Bd3
Bxd3 6.Qxd3 e6 7.o-o is a little advantageous for
White? Pity, I could use a good idea here.

To finish positively: I once thought to have found
the refutation of 3.d4 Bg4 and won with White
after 4.Bb5+ Nbd7 5.f3 Bg4 6Nc3 a6 7.Ba4 b5
8.Bb3 Nb6 9.Nge2 Nbxd5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.o-o
e6 12.Ng3 Bg6 13.f4 Qd7 14.f5 exf5 16.Qf3
MNb - Officier, corr NED 1998. Compare this
with 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bc4 Bg4 5.f3 Bf5 etc.
and in my game queenside castling was not
advisable for Black. But now I think 9.. b4
is an improvement; after 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Nce4
Nfxd5 12.o-o e6 13.f4 Be7 14.f5 exf5 15.Nxf5
o-o 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Nc5 Qh4 I am not
convinced anymore of a White advantage.

Fair enough, but as White I prefer to keep the bishops on, as I have a slight space advantage.

@ MNb

ad 3) In my mega-database white gains 90% in this line. It is more horrible, as it looks

ad 2) I play 4...Bg4 in this line, because after Bf5 5.Bd3 looks very good for white.

tx for the tip with the "kieler", i will check this line.


@alumbrado

the "positional line", but black looks ok after the strong Nf6-Ne4 idea

4...Nxd5 5. Nf3 Bf5 6.0-0 e6 7. a3!(c4 Nb4!) Be7 8. c4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Ne4! =

@spakus

yes, a lot of players choose the "attacking line", and i also prefer 4...Nb6 (yes Nxc3??). After Nc6-a4xb3 or a4 a5 Nb4 arise interesting und unbalanced positions on the board, and (i think) black has a full game here.

There is also the annoying move order 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Be2

Three Questions:

1. Am i the last crazy warrior, suffering with this line, or are there some others anywhere outside?

2. What are the sweet-lines for white (except the Panov)?

3. Is the line
1. e4 d5 2. exd Nf6 3.d4 Nxd5 4.Nf3 g6 refuted (i think so ) in view of
5. c4 Nb6 6. c5 Nd5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Nc3 c6 9. 0-0 0-0 10.Re1! +-
or are there some tricks for black?