For 99.99 per cent of chessplayers the 2...Nf6 Scandinavian is a perfectly viable opening. Probably not advisable to play it as your sole defence to 1e4 but, like everything else, in moderation it's ok. Take a look at the games of Evgenij Maljutin if interested in seeing a strong player play the black side of it well.

Personally, I find it difficult to play against the Scandinavian. Black seems to get a solid, although inferior position, and I don't know how to knock it down as white. The lines with kingside pawn pushes strike me as unnecessarily risky for white.

I'd rather meet 1...c5. I'm armed to the teeth in theory, and the positions are more interesting and concrete. Interestingly, I also like to meet 1...c6, because I feel that the attacking moves flow easily from the Nunn-Short Variation in the Advanced Caro. The french I don't mind ethier, except for the rubenstien (and related) lines, where I feel black is too solid for me to do any damage.

Most people seem to drop 1.e4 because of the sicilian; 1...d5 seems to be my biggest problem.

I'm not booked up on 2...Qa5 or the 2...Qd6 lines. But I'm sure  2)...Nf6 is sound.

There is one line where white gets an infinitesimal edge, but simply knowing the line doesn't guarantee a 1-0 result.

I like the ICC example he gave to "prove" that the 2)...Nf6 is unsound.
[sarcasm] Nice win over ""guest727". WOW! Isn't he the untitled guy who didn't anything in that tournament from nowhere?

The blunder on move five proves you beat a great player.[/sarcasm]

Mr. Pete Tamburro has missed the point of  the title of his own forum
"openings for amateurs"

When most ppl say "chess amateurs" that usually means they have a full time job (or full time student) other than chessplayer.
This means you have limited time to study (and play). Getting an even position out of the opening is good enough for me. I spend more time studying endgames, middlegames/pawn structures.
My study time breakdown:
15% Openings
50% middlegames
30% endgames
5% posting on chess related bbs

I couldn't follow that schedule if was a Ruy Lopez player.
Because you don't just learn Ruy Lopez, you have to learn The Scotch Game, 2 Knights, Italian Game, King's Gambit, Center Game, etc.

On the GM level where few, if any mistakes are made in the Middle and Endgame. Devoting a bigger amount of time studying openings to get a small advantage in the opening would pay greater dividends at the top level.
But at the less than 2000 level, time would be better spent elsewhere.
It doesn't make sense to have a GM level opening and a class D middle/endgame.

The 2)...Nf6 scandinavian is easy to learn. The sidelines where white wants to avoid the mainlines are a weak at best. Seems ideal for the amateur.

Mr Tamburro seems like a waffler on openings. Just look at his long opening book list. And those are just the ones he posted on his bulleting board.

He's probably some old guy quoting some 25 year old text. When he concluded that the Scandinavian is unsound.

Scandinavian players are resigned to a draw (at most) from the very first move when playing equal (or stronger) opposition??   
Really?  Its that bad?

Ok, so Pete's 'good friend' had trouble 'a few years ago' with this defense, but let's not overgeneralize to every black player.
There are many GMs who have been well served by this defense for years (Larsen, Rogers, etc) and its hardly a safe draw for strong opponents. 
Hjartarson is rated 2619 and just lost (as white) to a lower rated opponent in the last Olympiad (i.e. not even a month ago).
*Of course it was the glorious 3...Qd6 line, but I digress.

I think we can all agree Anand, Karpov, Timman, Shirov, Polgar, Svidler, and the like are strong players and they've lost as white.
So did Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Keres, Tal, Fischer, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, the overall record is in their favor (after all they're not only some the best players of all time, but they had white!).
*By the way, Kasparov has an amazing record against the Scandinavian... then again, he also does against almost everything else.

This defense has a good pedigree, a good record and deserves more respect than simple platitudes.
I am amazed that anybody thinks that when I play 1...d5, they can already claim I got no more than a draw against good play.

The statisitcs on the Scandinavian do not reflect this viewpoint.

White scores exactly 54% in the Scandinavian overall (i.e. the normal percentage)
Against 3...Qd6, White gets 53%.   

As for draws... According to BigBase 2006 (and TWIC up to 606, i.e. last week):
1...c5 = 30% draw (in 622399 games)
1...e5 = 29% draw (in 363497 games)
1...d5 = 28% draw (in 53728  games)

The percentage of draws in the Scandinavian is actually lower than in the Sicilian and the Open Game.
Or are they also considered "nothing more than a draw"?   

As for the "if white knows what he is doing Black has a hard time winning" argument.....Which defense is that NOT true?
Surely if White knows the opening thoroughly, Black is not likely to have huge winning chances right out of the gate.
I don't understand why this is a critique of the Scandinavian at all and I must agree with BlkSabb completely on this point.
Besides, how many people really know the Scandinavian as well as the Sicilian?

Then there is this:
"you have no opportunity, if the opening is played correctly, to imbalance the position in order to play for a win. In other words you're playing for a draw."

There is no opportunity to imbalance the position? 
He couldn't locate any sharp gambit lines? In the Scandinavian??
I am floored that anyone would say this about the  2...Nf6 lines.

Anyway, although I like the Scandinavian, I would agree that it is not the objectively "best" defense to 1.e4. 
But it does score well, its very, very easy to learn (especially considering the Sicilian or the Spanish), and frankly I like playing a game where the first 15-20 moves aren't blitzed out theory.   


my 2 cents,
Nietzsche

This is an exaggeration with a core of truth. I have played three games as Black with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 (crossroads: White also has 3.c4, 3.Nc3, 3.Nf3, 3.Be2 and 3.Bb5+) Nxd5 (Bg4!?) 4.c4 (again a crossroad: White has 4.Nf3) Nb4?! in corr games and has a score of 2½. It could have been 3 from 3. Still, if White knows what he is doing, Black will have a hard time indeed. So it might indeed not be a good "long term opening". But who says, that ELO 1800 patzers like me should stick to one opening for more than say 4-5 years?
So yes, if you want an opening for life, there might be better choices. I think chess too rich for that - but who am I?

PS: are you Ozzy fan?