I played it when I was a kid before Kasparov revived it. I was told I should be playing the Spanish, now look!

Quote:


Thanks Andrew.

I already have Sam Collins' book, but I'd like more detail on the Scotch to fill in the gaps!

Has anyone seen anything on these two books yet?

I am so excited this is the month for both Emms book and Gary Lane's work to come out.

Thanx.
Great forums!

The Scotch Gambit must be good!
The Scottish never give anything away without a very good reason.   

It it strange that the Bishop's Opening line mentioned above by MNb is not at all mentioned in Lane's new The Bishop's Opening Explained, whereas Emms's Attacking with 1 e4 has a few words on it. Emms discusses 5. Nf3 and 5. f4 (transposing to something KGD-like anyway).

(Sorry, this has not much to do with the Scotch).

Well the King's Indian and the Sicilian dragon (and the Leningrad Dutch for that matter) are very similar openings in terms of strategy due to the Gufeld bishop on g7. Getting something similar with 1.e4 e5 is very difficult.
The problem with 1.e4 e5 (and 1.d4 d5) openings is that it creates a static and symmetrical centre. Now every pawn move to d4 (or e4) will be met by exd4 (or dxe4).
Usually White will try to find another way to get a central majority or put some pressure on Black's pawn centre. After 1.d4 d5 there is the queen's gambit with 2.c4. If Black accepts then an eventual e2-e4 creates a pawn majority in the centre which cramps Black's game.
In the King's pawn openings the only similar try is to play f2-f4. This can be done with the King's gambit 2.f4, which unlike the QG is a real gambit. Alternatively there is the Vienna or bishop's opening. The American master Weaver Warren Adams believed that the position after something like 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nc6 5.f4 d6 6.Nf3 was close to winning for White and any King's gambit player will give his right arm to get this position with White.
Unfortunately W.W. Adams never found a safe way to reach the position:
In the Vienna Black can annoy us with 3...Nxe4 which does not even lead to the Frankenstein-Dracula (4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 and now 5...Be7 instead of 5...Nc6)
in the bishop's opening there is 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 with ...d5 to come.
In the King's gambit Black is unfortunately not forced to play 2...Bc5 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.d3.
The only other way to put pressure on e5 is the Ruy Lopez, but Black can avoid that too and play the Petroff which is even more symmetrical.

Regarding the Scotch one can avoid the Petroff with 2.d4. People that know me and play the Scotch always play 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 since this avoids both the Latvian and Elephant gambits, maybe not so important for GMs but in blitz and rapidplay who wants to try and refute these openings. It also cuts down on Black's options in a Petroff.
Black need not comply with White's plans and go for 3...Nc6 with a Scotch. Besides 3...Bb4+ 4.Bd2 there is also the careless 3...c5?! which can be met by the gambit 4.c3. I reckon Black's best is 3...Bc5.

Since I don't have a problem with the King's gambit 1...e5 is not the problem for me. Rather, the French 1...e6 is the most annoying as Black decides what kind of game is to be played (Fort Knox or Winaver; 3...c5 or 3...Nf6 against the Tarrasch etc.)

In a way it is more difficult to play White.
With Black I need only two openings> The Dragon and the Leningrad Dutch.
With White one needs to be able to play a whole host of different positions depending on what Black chooses (Caro-Kann, French, Sicilian, 1...e5, Pirc/modern, Alekhine def, Scandinavian in all its different variations).
One could argue that 1.f4 or 1.c4 would lead to reversed Dutch or reversed Dragon positions but in my experience Black players don't allow a reversed Leningrad after 1.f4 and not a lot of people are willing to play a reversed Dragon with 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 d5.

Once in a while when I am at a loss what opening or variation to choose against something, I take a look in the database to see what the grandmasters that play the same openings as I do, play against it.
For Dragons and King's Indian your reference should be Belorussian GM Alexey Fedorov. He used to play the KG until it was revealed that 3.Nf3 g5 is a draw. Now he plays the Bishop's opening, food for thought.

My best advice is to avoid the Petroff and learn the Bishop's gambit (2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4!) or the Vienna/Bishop's opening.

Quote:


Yeah actually, KG is decent for White, at least the Bishop's Gambit.  I would look at that if my motto were "Gambits Dammit!"  I regret I can't similarly recommend the Danish, which I believe to be unsound.

One other aspect of the scotch is that you can gambit the pawn (which you seem to enjoy ).
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4
-4 .. Bc5 allows for wild play with c3, 0-0 or even Ng5
-4 .. Nf6 allows the Max Lange after 0-0 (I dont trust the Nxe4 variation for white so I dont play it in a normal game) or the modern variation with 5 e5, which is quite tricky to meet for black. I played this a couple of times as you can reach it from the Two knights defense as well.
Most books dealing with these variations are usually based on the Giuoco/TKD, so you wont find them in a book on the scotch.

Another thing is that you can answer the Petrov with 3 Nc3 though I dont know much about variations there.

Hello All,
I've had fun playing the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 ed 4.Nd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6 6.Nb5!? (Blumenfeld Attack) after seeing an article in NIC 2003/7.  I'm not sure I would want to play it against strong opposition, but at the local club level...interesting games. Any thoughts?
Regards

In Danish Dynamite Müller and Vogt break a lance for 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2. This might cause Black some problems.

Quote:


Agreed.  I don't think the Scotch can serve as a complete repertoire for White against 1 ... e5.  I would be inclined to stick with the standard mover order and find something else with which to confront the Petroff.

You could try to avoid the Petroff with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4!? exd4 3.Nf3 when 3...Nf6 transposes to a line that is though to be inferior (Black would normally meet 3.d4 in the Petroff with 3...Nxe4! rather than 3...exd4?!).

The problem is that Black can lob in 3...Bb4†!? when 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 tranposes to a Goring Gambit after an eventual ...Nc6 (which it is hard for Black to avoid).  On the plus side, it has forced black to accept the gambit, avoiding the Capablance Defence with [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3] 4...d5.  On the minus side, it has robbed White of the opportunity to play it as a double pawn sac [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4!?].

As for the Scotch itself, I have my doubts.  The main lines with 4...Nf6 seem pretty easy for Black to me.  And 4...Bc5 ain't bad either.

I don't have either the book or a set in front of me at the moment but there is a line in Sam Collins recent repertoire book which left me puzzled: it is in the ...Bc5/...Qf6 line and Black has a bishop on d4 and White plays Ne2 to get rid of it, but no mention is made of the possibility of ...Bxb2, simply snatching a pawn.  I had a look at the position and was very sceptical as to whether White had sufficient compensation.

Before Kasparov both Dutch GM's Timman and Van der Wiel have played it with success. The Scotch is still a cornerstone of the latter's repertoire.
It was an important reason for me to give up 1...e5. But after reading Gutman's 4...Dh4 in der Schottischen Partie I consider to take up the challenge again - but I am doubting for more than a year already.
The Scotch is the best Open Game for White after the Ruy Lopez. Only problem: the Petrov. The Scotch is in any case much more sensible than the BDG ....

Well, Kasparov thought it was worth a go in the late-80s or early-90s.  Almost twenty years ago, the chess instructor at the school I was at recommended we play the Sicilian as Black and the Scotch as White.  I'm afraid I don't remember any of the theory, but remember thinking it was fairly solid.  I'm sure Kasparov's interest in it provoked a lot of new ideas for Black and White since I tried it, but I'm sure it's worth a look.  Doesn't Short dust it off from time to time?