LOL!!  

If you think you can make it up as you go along playing the Scandanvian you are sadly mistaken. Moreover Wahls book and the analysis contained therein is dated.

To play the Scandanvian well you have to know lots and lots and lots of theory. If you do not, your only chance is that your opponent is as less informed as you.

Shall I give you a hint, Shirov vs Salov is still the critical line to study here. Another big hint, White should only play Nf3 once Black commits to Nf6, the reason being that if Black delays nf6 too long the kingside pawnstorm is very dangerous almost terminal for black.

The Scandanavian is by no means a non-theoretical haven for Black, so you better look elsewhere fast.

Now listen to me very carefully there is absolutely no non theoretical easy to play defence that is both active, sound and offers good play.

Activity, soundness and good play are reserved strictly for the main recognised defences where you have to do some hard theoretical work.

Sorry lads, I'm afraid its nose to the grindstone time.

Top    

topolanek: Why not, if that's what he prefers?

Elta: I believe so. E.g. the following game I won as black in the Dähnepokal (opponent was rated 1862), endless endgame torture (quite imprecise play by both of us) from one of the most boring variations in the Scandinavian:
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Bc4 Bf5 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Bd2 e6 8.Ne5 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Bb4 10.0-0-0 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Nd5 12.Nxd5 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 14.Rxd2 exd5 15.Bd3 Bxd3 16.Rxd3 0-0-0 17.Rhd1 Rhe8 18.f4 g5 19.Rh3 gxf4 20.Rxh7 Rxe5 21.Rxf7 Re2 22.Rd2 Rxd2 23.Kxd2 Rg8 24.Rh7 Rxg2+ 25.Kd1 f3 26.Rf7 Rxh2 27.Rxf3 Kc7 28.Rf7+ Kb6 29.Rd7 a5 30.a4 Rh4 31.b3 Rb4 32.Kd2 Kc5 33.Kc3 b6 34.Rd8 Rh4 35.Rb8 Rh3+ 36.Kd2 b5 37.Ra8 Kb4 38.axb5 cxb5 39.Rd8 Rh5 40.Kd3 a4 41.bxa4 bxa4 42.Rb8+ Ka3 43.Ra8 Rh4 44.Ra5 Rh1 45.Kc3 Rd1 46.Rb5 d4+ 47.Kc4 Ka2 48.Kb4 Kb2 49.Kxa4+ Kxc2 50.Rc5+ Kd2 51.Kb3 Rb1+ 52.Kc4 d3 53.Rh5 Kc2 0-1

On the other hand, I don't want to scare anyone off from playing the Scandinavian, you sometimes do get fun games like the following one, too (admittedly a rapid game):
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Bd2 Bf5 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Be2 e6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.a3 Qc7 10.Re1 Bd6 11.g3 h5 12.Bf1 h4 13.Bg2 0-0-0 14.Ne2 Rh7 15.c4 hxg3 16.fxg3 Ng4 17.c5 Nxc5 18.dxc5 Bxc5+ 19.Ned4 Rxd4 20.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 21.Kf1 Nxh2+ 22.Ke2 Qe5+ 0-1

In the end it's the same as always, the decision is increasingly likely to come about in the endgame if the ratings of the opponents are about similar.

Thanks, Bonsai.
I am asking myself whether this Wahls judgement is also true for opponents rated around 1600 - 1800 Elo  ???

more answers of this kind and i will follow your advise 

some openings tend to be so sharp and imbalanced that they are usually decided in the middle game, some tend to be solid, balanced and decided in the endgame; my feeling was that the Wahls-Scandi is something for people with much patience and I wanted to know whether I am right  or not?

Is it correct to say if somebody dont likes to play endgames or to play long games with much patience, then he better dont plays the Wahls Scandinavian???

Maybe it is possible to play the Wahls Scandinavian with not much theory (but look how big the book actually is, that is a fair amount of theory), but people that encounter it often enough get booked up on it for the white side and there *is* quite a bit of theory there and not all of it is in his book.

The wire was nearly on the way, Mr. TopNotch  . But then I instructed my bank to stop it when recognizing that what you call so shy "Hanham variation" is according to my clever opening quick guide (Jerzy Konikowski) simply the main line of the Philidor. But thanks anyway.

What is the opening vs. e4, that you can play with nearly always the same setup and the same position, with least theory just from your feeling, right away?

I suppose it is the Scandinavian (played the "Wahls"-way with c6 and e6), isnt it? 

Other ideas?