I think this horse became a unicorn, grew wings, and flew into the clouds.

Maybe we should start a new thread like "Busting the Scandinavian" to get at the heart of the issue and talk about concrete variations.  As the discussion continues in this way, we will have club players coming out of the wood work talking about their win over the local club expert.  Many club players do well with this opening, simply because their opponents are not well prepared to meet it. 

Tiviakov recently wrote a nice article in the last NIC Yearkbook (74) about about the line

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bg4

and concluded that Black was having great difficulties against a simple plan for White (Bd2, Nd5, Nxf6, Bb3, Qe2, and O-O-O).  In fact, the title of the artice is "A Series of Simple Moves Suffices."

As Tiviakov mentions in his conclusions, this plan is also very effective against 6...Bf5.  The game Shirov-Salov 1997, that TopNotch refers to, uses this same plan.  

TopNotch has dropped a few hints on how he likes to meet the Scandinavian.  I think he mentioned that he likes to meet the move order with 4...c6 and 5...Bf5 by

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Bc4 Bf5 6.Bd2 e6 7.g4

which is a very aggressive possibility.  Correct me if I am referring to the wrong line.

Maybe TopNotch will start a thread on this of his own?  Though I can understand if he doesn't want to give too much away.  

I know this horse needs to be put down ASAP, but still... this discussion concerns the roots of chess- how to choose openings, how to improve and such, let me clarify a few things: 

An 1800 (like me  ) facing a well prepared 2200, will have to fight like a tiger, squirm like a snake, dance like a butterfly and sting like a hyperactive bee to get out of the opening with good winning\drawing chances. 
You will have to think hard to find one-movers on the board, thats life. 

But many people here are trying to  make the scandi non-legit, which makes me pissed. Even with what ive said earlier, in all my games playing ....d5 as black i never got to a position where white had a decisive advantage, not even against masters. sometimes a large advantage, never decisive. And ive got = or += against many u2000. 

But maybe people dont understand, you cant learn the scandi once then play it from your sleep. you need to take time to understand both sides ideas, and to make corrections. But unlike the caro, here you create the theory, and thats fun. 
Even if you play ...a6 theres no theory, but its legit- you just need to understand the ideas.

The Openings were suggested to fit the criteria of this thread.  

I did not claim that they were the second coming, just an interesting way to avoid masses of theory. The setup you offered with Nge2 and f3 are both fine, and may give White a slight edge. Big deal, I never disputed white gaining a slight edge in such irregular lines, as we all know escaping theory comes at a price, however if black continues to play thematically he should be ok. I offer two games to illustrate the point:    

[Event "FIDE-Wch k.o."]
[Site "Tripoli"]
[Date "2004.06.19"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Mahjoob,Morteza"]
[Black "Azmaiparashvili,Zurab"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B07"]
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Be7 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 exd4 7.Nxd4 d5 8.e5 Nfd7 9.f4 Nb6 10.Nb3 c6 11.Bd3 N8d7 12.Qf3 a5 13.a4 Bb4 14.Qf2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 dxc4 16.Nd2 Qe7 17.0-0 f6 18.Nxc4 fxe5 19.f5 Nf6 20.Qg3 Nh5 21.Qxe5 Qxe5 22.Nxe5 Bxf5 23.Nd3 Bxd3 24.cxd3 Nf6 25.Rad1 Rad8 0-1

[Event "Cairnhill op"]
[Site "Singapore"]
[Date "1999.12.08"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Nithiananthan,J"]
[Black "Wong Meng Leong"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B00"]
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 d6 6.0-0-0 Nd7 7.f3 a6 8.g4 e6 9.h4 h5 10.g5 Ne7 11.Nge2 0-0 12.Ng3 d5 13.Be2 c5 14.f4 dxe4 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Qe1 Qc7 17.Bxh5 Rac8 18.Rh2 Nf5 19.Bg4 b5 20.Bxf5 exf5 21.a3 Ne6 22.Nge2 a5 23.Rd2 b4 24.Nb5 Qc4 
25.Nd6 Qa2 26.Kd1 Qb1+ 27.Nc1 Bxb2 0-1

The difference between the above lines and the Kings Gambit is that the former doesn't 'blunder' a pawn. I have a bit more respect for my pawns, especially the Center ones.

I wonder Mnb if you devote as much time to your students as you do to this forum, as with well over 1000 post it seems like you live here.

Top  

I didn't trade off soundness for least theory 

Ok, maybe 1...a6 is a bit Ropey, but the Lion/ Hanham Variation seems playable and you don't need to know much theory to play it. Here it is:

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5!?

Now here is your challenge, show me how White gets a big advantage against the above. To my knowledge he can at best secure a slight edge.

Now for the Hippo:

1.e4 b6 [This is probably the best way to enter it] 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 e6 7.Bg5 Ne7 8.Nbd2 Nd7. This is the basic layout of the Hippo, which you can do against just about anything.

The two setups outlined above seem to fit the criteria as layed out by Roger 3 much better than anything suggested so far.

Neither the Lion or Hippo is unsound, only unusual and a little eccentric. 

Can anyone here demonstrate how White can attain more than a slight edge against the above lines, I doubt you can. In fact both of the above lines I occassionally use as surprise weapons as the need arises, and the Hippo in particular canbe deadly in a must win situation.

Comments?

Top

We're starting to flog a dead horse here, so it's high time I joined in.  What we're talking about here is finding openings with simple themes and plans.  It's impossible to avoid all preparation, but I'd be inclined to throw in a plug for the Caro.  Black starts by setting up a sound pawn structure and then looks for the opportunity to bash forward with ... c5.

At the same time, looking for a quick and easy line to play against 1 e4 seems counter-intuitive on two counts.  Surely any player needs to limit his/her selection to openings that fit his/her style.  There is no earthly point lashing out with something easy if the middlegame is a mystery and unappealing.  Secondly, looking for a quick, easy, and untheoretical opening doesn't sound very interesting.  I appreciate that we all have time constraints outside of chess, but maybe slowing down the amount of play and spending a little more time in the war room before returning to league or tournament play might prove more rewarding...

Quote:


i think you'll find if you go back and read the original question that least theory was a central part of his criteria topnotch. 

Quote:


Neither was the question by Roger3 which has more theory, Scandanavian or Caro-Kann.

In fact both the Scandanavian and Caro have lots of theory attached to them, so that one has a liitle more than the other is irrelevant, since neither fit the bill anyway.

Top