This is an interesting thread.  I have nothing really new to add but I am going to offer a little additional support to Inn2's and Tracke's perspectives.

I think part of Inn2 and Tracke's point is that in the Scandinavian there are numerous sharp attacking lines for White in which Black may objectively have a playable game, but he is living rather close to the edge and, consequently, needs to know what he is doing.  Moreover, the theory in some critical and sharp lines of the Scandi seems to be in a state of flux at the moment.

The Scandi may be the perfect opening for a player of certain strength playing others of a certain strength to learn with minimal effort (particularly the ...Qxd5, ...Qa5, ...Nf6, ...c6, ...Bf5 lines).  Except for lines where White delays c2-c4, the set-up is almost universal, it is rather solid albeit provocative (all that shunting about with the Q!), and if White is not prepared and plays passively Black can get a nice position by playing fairly automatic moves. 

However, I agree with Tracke and Inn2 that against opponents above a certain level who are prepared for the Scandi and strong enough to punish a bad opening on a fairly regular basis, you may actually need to know more theory in the Scandi to survive the opening and get a playable position than in the Caro-Kann.  In a line like the ...Qxd5 Scandi, where Black gives up some development from the start and doesn't place a great deal of immediate pressure on White's center, White can choose from a number of promising set-ups where Black, in order to defend, may have to know some "only moves" to survive against a well-prepared opponent.  Mistakes in the Scandi caused by ignorance of theory or of recent games can, in a number of sharp variations, be almost instantly fatal.  So, against a prepared opponent who chooses an aggressive line, the Scandi player is walking a bit of a tightrope between = (or, more probably, +=) positions and +-  (I mean + over - here but don't know how to do the symbol) positions, and in such situations knowing the theory becomes rather critical.

In the absolute mainline of the Caro-Kann with ...Bf5, Black gets a similar solid set-up with the ...e6 and ...c6 pawns, but he hasn't given up development with the ...Qxd5 and ...Qa5 maneuver as in the ...Qxd5 Scandi, and as a result he is less vulnerable to quick and forceful attacks in most lines.  Also, much of the theory in the Caro-Kann is what might be called "grandmaster theory": largely concerned with the struggle by White to get a += position and the struggle by Black to get an = one.  It often takes a lot of positional understanding and technique to win such positions as White even when Black makes mistakes.  So while the theoretical baggage associated with the Caro-Kann is large and  certainly useful to know, IMO a large part of this theory is not absolutely critical to Black's survival or even his ability to get a playable game, even against a  relatively strong and prepared opponent of 2100 or even 2200 elo.   

Another way to look at this is with a solid pawn structure, Black can usually get away with several non-developing or counter-intuitive moves without encountering fatal problems.  But in the ...Qxd5 Scandi you play those moves right away (...Qxd5!? and ...Qa5 or ...Qd6), whereas in the Caro-Kann you keep those moves in reserve.  (This is a gross oversimplification, of course, but I believe there is an element of truth in this, particularly when considered in the context of White's sharper tries.)

Of course there are sharp lines in the Advance Variation of the Caro-Kann, the Fantasy Variation, the Panov-Botvinnik attack, etc., but in each of these variations Black has solid options where he maintains parity or near-parity in development, and Black can often survive simply by playing natural, logical moves.  Even in subvariations where some knowledge of theory is critical, my impression is that the range of immediately threatening set-ups for White is relatively narrow.

In fairness, my statements above may exagerrate the size of the difference in "safety" levels between the Scandi and the Caro-Kann a bit in order to make my point, but I do believe that this difference exists, and that it has an effect on the amount of theory you need to know against opponents above a certain level.  Below that level, you may do just as well or better with the Scandi than the Caro-Kann.  If you aren't likely to face 2100-2200+ elo players very often, or you don't particularly mind losing to players in that range, then perhaps the Scandi is a good opening for you.  (I happen to agree with John Cox that the Alekhine is also not a bad choice given such conditions, because if you limit yourself to the solidest lines for Black there is surprisingly little theory that you really need to know unless you are facing a very well-prepared opponent.)  But I take Inn2's and Tracke's point to be two-fold:

(i)   With opponents above a certain level, you will      start to come under pressure in a number of lines in the Scandi unless you are quite well-prepared, and because the theory of a number of sharp variations is still in flux, you will not only have to learn a substantial amount of critical theory to survive in these lines, you will also need to keep up with developments.  These points may also be true of the Caro-Kann, but to a lesser extent.

(ii)   If your goals in chess are relatively ambitious but you still want to learn modest amount of theory at this point, you are better off learning a solid and completely sound opening like the Caro, rather than a somewhat riskier opening like the Scandi.  The Caro will always be playable at any level, you can choose between various sound lines, and you can build on your knowledge forever.  Because it is intrinsically less risky and provocative than the Scandi, there is also more scope for experimentation in many variations of the Caro-Kann, where a slightly inferior move is more likely to lead to a small disadvantage rather than cause serious problems.



     

i agree with you about the caro kann mnb but i rather think the first poster was asking with which opening can one get a reasonably playable position against 1e4 while at the same time keeping theory to a minimum. I guess theres no opening now that can be played without at least knowing some rudimentary theory. my fellow countryman the king's example seems to suggest that the scandinavian may fit the bill. i know it wouldnt be to everyones taste, but someone wanting a cure all for 1e4 without necessarily committing themselves to learning masses of theory could do a lot worse.

Surely below a certain level it doesn't matter what you play... if both sides are 1200, either will surely make a blunder that will decide the game. But assuming both sides are reasonably strong club players (or aspiring to be one!) , ie. fide elo>2100 playing in an international open etc, then the scandi is too risky with no theory. 

About the Alekhine, I've had Mr. John Cox's book for several weeks now, and as fantastic as the book is, it cannot convince me to just play it OTB "like that" after several  hours of reading that book and practice blitz games. Perhaps that well-known statement about the Alekhine is true (did Davies or Cox say it??): the Alekhine scores very well for specialists, but occasional users don't fare well with it. 

Alekhine calls for more knowledge... i simply play 2.Nc3 as white... dont want to go wrong against a prepared player. 

Though id say its the best opening against a "Smashing opponent", ie some guy who thinks he can smash you in 10 moves.... they can really destroy themselves in alekhine positions as white....

Returning to the original question; it really depends what level of play one is considering and in what sort of environment: I know some local leagues where knowing the first five moves of the Sicilian Dragon makes you a theoretical guru.

At the risk of plugging myself, the Alekhine can be played with very little theoretical knowledge. If they go 4 Nf3, go dxe5 5 Nxe5 c6, then Bf5 and Nd7. If they play the Exchange, go ...exd6, Be7/Bg4/00/Nc6/Bf6. If they play the Four Pawns, go 6..c5 7 d5 g6 and see what happens. I'm not saying it'll work against a GM, but in chess below 2100 level you'll do fine (if the opening suits you) knowing more or less nothing beyond what I've just said.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that's not what tracke meant, I believe he rather meant that in the Scandinavian white can learn extremely dangerous attacking ideas and reproduce them over-the-board without investing all that much time. If then black does not know exactly how to react, he does often lose without ever getting anything resembling counter-play. And of course I'm still waiting for a GM to offer to play the black side of the Wahls-Scandinavian against me... 

The scandi isn't 100% busted. More like it is under pressure from so many directions, it is too time-consuming to repair it every month. Its not even like the Sicilian, where the compensation for studying theory is you get chances to checkmate White!! Here you study so many tactical lines only to reach "boring" equality.... 

As someone who plays the c-k (and I imagine Tracke as well), the scandinavian is of course appealing because it reaches the same type of pawn structure! I would dearly love to make the scandinavian my main weapon, but it is too difficult. 

In this sense, the scandinavian is somewhat like the Pirc (but perhaps worse!?): White has too many nice lines, all of which demand careful prep from black.

Quote:


gee tracke from your quote above it would seem like the Scandinavian is completely busted. you might want to keep that one to yourself so that next time a GM is foolish enough to play it against you, you can crush him in 30 moves without giving him any chance for defending or counterattack