Talk:Scandinavian Defense

Harry Potter?
OOH, Ron Weasley plays the Scandinavian. Tell me again why I should care? I mean, was there any DIALOGUE about this opening? Was there any reason to believe it wasn't just a random sequence the directer chose because it "looked cool"? Eleland 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that Jeremy Silman was involved in the scene as a whole, and created the position used in the final sequence, I say we keep it. Even though it's not clear from the referenced article whether Silman picked the opening, it's completely plausible that he did, as the producers probably wanted something with an immediate capture, for script reasons -- and the Center Counter fits the bill better than any other (sound) opening!  If that was an accidental choice, they could hardly have done better.Goldenband 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Gambit
The Marshall Gambit page was recently split from this page. I don't think that was well advised, and I suggest that they be merged again.
 * 1) This page (Scandinavian Defense) was not so long that a split was required for the use of WP:SUMMARY style.
 * 2) It is beneficial to have a complete discussion of the opening in one place if possible.
 * 3) Most importantly, the name Marshall Gambit is applied to at least three distinct and unrelated openings: Tarrasch Defense: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e4, Semi-Slav Defense: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2, and the line in the Scandinavian. Quale (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely concur. In addition to that reasoning, fewer, more comprehensive articles are better than many articles for variations, and help avoid notability issues which endanger the variation forks.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with merging Marshall Attack back as well. The Scandinavian Defense is notable enough for its own article, but it is a secondary opening, and variations of it probably do not. "Marshall Gambit" should be a disambiguation, and probably mention the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez, which is really a gambit as well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree too. The new article has already had its notability questioned. It's better off here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree as well, and for what it's worth, I even play the opening (2...Nf6)! Goldenband (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree also. Don't understand the reasoning behind splitting the article up. ChessCreator (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since consensus here appears to be very unanimous, I have gone ahead and merged the content of Marshall Defense back into this article, the Marshall Defense page is now a disambiguation. There are some obscure variations which will need sourcing in the material, and I am not so good with galleries that I can make neat diagrams on the disambig page, so some more help on that score would be nice. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that the article's been merged once again, the 2...Nf6 section definitely needs some rewriting. Relatively unimportant variations like the Richter are given a fair bit of space, whereas all of 3. Bb5+ gets only a line or so. Also, there are some parenthetical asides that are a bit unencyclopedic in tone. As an alternative to a full rewrite, if someone wants to review some older revisions of this section and split the difference, I think it'd be a positive step forward. Goldenband (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, while I'm thinking about it, I believe 2...Nf6 is on record as having been played before Frank Marshall was even born, so we may want to modify that language a bit. Goldenband (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the proposal, and as someone said above, the Marshall Gambit article should basically just refer the reader to the (three) opening articles that have a Marshall Gambit. Bubba73 (talk), 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

usage % of main variations
i like the wiki tutorials on chess but they lack some statistic dat (win rate) like you would see in many databases. Ofcourse wiki isnt such a database, but it would tell a chess player more about how likely / good alternative moves are. For example the knight attack seams to be preferred these days above the queen continuation.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.73.155.148 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

chessgames.com
some of these openings seem to have links, on the main picture, to chess games.com, I was gonna delete it as it seem to just be advertising but is there some relevant reason for it being there?Broonsparrow (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be there. There seems to be significant link-spamming from chessgames.com on various chess opening articles. It should all be removed. The links are titled "in depth analysis", but the analysis is not in fact in-depth. It seems like someone affiliated with the site is just trying to drive traffic to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.19.62 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Check with the chess project on that. The project decided to use links to Chessgames.com.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems some cross-wires here. The discussion it seems is about the thechesswebsite.com link which is now removed, if not, please point to where 'in depth analysis' is claimed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mieses-Kotrc
According to the Oxford Companion to Chess, the Mieses-Kotrc Gambit is 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4. The Variation 3...Qe6+ doesn't have a name as far as I know, it's just garbage and I found no examples in the database before 1979. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Some clarifications about the lines
The actual main line of the Scandinavian Defense is 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 (also called Mieses-Kotrč, Main Line). The line 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 is the Mieses-Kotrč. Also, the line: 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 is the Modern line of Scandinavian (not with 3. d4), with 3. d4 Nxd5 the Marshall Variation.

Also, 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 is also called "Closed Scandinavian", transposing to "Alekhine's Defense, Scandinavian Variation" with 2...Nf6.

All those variations have ECO code B01, with exception the Alekhine's that has B02. AzureDrake92 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's actually an "improved" Caro–Kann position because the light-squared bishop is developed outside of the pawn structure.
No, almost ANY Caro Kann var. has light bishop out of pawn structure. (which is an improvement to French Defense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.1.163 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rmv'd this. See also WP:FIXIT. --IHTS (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Improvement
I'm new to editing chess articles, so not sure how to proceed here.

Currently we have: with two references
 * White may also play 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.c4. Now 5...Nb6 6.c5!? is a sharp line; Black should respond 6...N6d7!, rather than 6...Nd5? 7.Qb3, when Black resigned after 7...b6? 8.Ne5! in Timman–Bakkali, Nice Olympiad 1974, and 7...Bxf3 8.Qxb7! Ne3 9.Qxf3 Nc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Qxa8 also wins for White.

However, even better in that final line is 7...Bxf3 8.Qxb7! Ne3 9.Qxf3 Nc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Bb5+ Nbd7 12.Bxd7+ Qxd7 13.Qxa8+ Qd8 14.Qxd8+ Kxd8 15.b4, when White will emerge a piece up and the queens have been exchanged.

I could make this edit, but I don't know which of the two references (Plaskett or Grefe & Silman) would become obsolete, and the only reference I have for this is my own analysis, checked with Stockfish.

STeamTraen (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Leonhardt Gambit Trap
The Leonhardt Gambit is a fairly unpopular, but deadly gambit in the Scandinavian: e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 b4!? Qxb4 Nb5! Only Na6 is good, For example Qa5?! Bc4 c6? Bxf7+! Kxf7 Qh5+ and knight will give a discovered check wherever the king moves, and white wins the queen (fairly high win rate at the low level) anyone think it's worthy to add?! Jishiboka1 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)