|
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.
|
Pages: [1] 
Vs. e4 with least theory? (Read 73368 times)
