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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This page (Scandinavian Defense) was not so long that a split was required for the use of WP:SUMMARY style.
It is beneficial to have a complete discussion of the opening in one place if possible.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Totally agree. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree too. The new article has already had its notability questioned. It's better off here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as well, and for what it's worth, I even play the opening (2...Nf6)! Goldenband (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also. Don't understand the reasoning behind splitting the article up. ChessCreator (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fixed after 11 years. Unfortunately calling 2.exd5 Qxd5 the "Mieses-Kotrc Variation" has spread a lot online. Similar to the "Polerio Defense" thing, I would not be surprised if it arose from simply misreading Hooper and Whyld and was never fixed. Dayshade (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just a note for any future passersby, this is not actually the Mieses-Kotrč. See the section above. Dayshade (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Khiikiat: Does that source say anything about the origin of the Mieses-Kotrč name? I'm skeptical that it's not just an error from chess.com mistakenly assigning that label to 2...Qxd5 instead of 4.b4, which is what it's used for in Hooper & Whyld and seems to make much more sense. (i.e. why would the main line, which predates them, be named almost identically to the 4.b4 gambit?) Perhaps that author fell for chess.com's probably-mistaken name? Dayshade (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't own the book. Like you, I have only looked at the free PDF excerpt. I don't think Engqvist has been hoodwinked by Chess.com. He knows a lot about the history of chess and almost certainly knows that Mieses–Kotrč Variation is a recent invention. I suspect he has used the term simply because it has become so common online. Incidentally, the article currently uses Gubinsky–Melts Defense for 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6. This appears to be another name taken from Chess.com. Engqvist doesn't use this term. Instead, he uses Pytel Variation (after Krzysztof and Bożena Pytel). Khiikiat (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "Pytel Variation" and "Bronstein Variation", both much more elegant than "Gubinsky-Melts Variation". I guess Bronstein already has enough opening lines named after him, he was a very creative player and never afraid to experiment. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. Rmv'd this. See also WP:FIXIT. --IHTS (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

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

Currently we have:

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.

with two references

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Engqvist is perpetuating an error he got off the internet

2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 is just a main line Scandinavian, it doesn't have a name. Mieses-Kotrc (whichever order you want to put it) is 3...Qa5 4.b4!? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I wonder if there is legitimate terminology involving Mieses (a frequent Scandinavian practitioner) for any of Black's moves (i.e. separate from 4.b4) that happened to get mixed up when being put online. Dayshade (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS, he probably got the name from Wikipedia. This shows why we have to be careful what we write here.MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the exact edit that introduced it from 2023: [1]. This comes from an Israeli IP. Shortly afterwards an Israeli editor logs in as Jonathan Alferon and makes similar edits to other sections, attaching names to them. I don't necessarily oppose the name "Valencian Variation" on principle or anything, but nor should we be doing free publicity for the two Spaniards who are pushing for that name. If it gets established we'll be able to add it later, but Wikipedia is intentionally behind the curve. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And here's where I removed the misnamed "Mieses-Kotrc Variation" when it was applied to 3...Qe6+?, over 10 years ago. [2] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And oof, “Patzer Variation” was in the article for over a decade too then it seems. Dayshade (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The name is mentioned by Emms, but I didn't think it was worth restoring on that basis. Apparently it's not quite as bad as people used to think. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that makes me feel better then. I’m assuming he meant it as a joke? Or was he seriously proposing to call it that? Figured it was based off the “patzer sees a check” thing anyway so could be worse. Dayshade (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He referred to it in capital letters, indicating that he believes that's the name of the line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I think happened

I haven't got to the bottom of how Jan Kotrc's name came to be associated with any line of the Scandinavian. He wasn't all that active as a player and none of his games that I have found feature a Scandinavian. He was the editor of a couple of Czech language magazines in the late 19th/early 20th century and may have published analysis of the Scandinavian at some point, or just annotated a few games with it. The gambit 4.b4!? was introduced into master play by Paul Saladin Leonhardt against Mieses in 1907, hence the alternative name Leonhardt Gambit. For some reason (I haven't found out how) it came to be called the Mieses-Kotrc Gambit and is recorded as such in OCC.

My theory is that it's ultimately ChessBase's fault. Their software features extended ECO codes, the precursor to SCID, and this feature dates from the late 1980s. Under B01 there would have been a code for Mieses-Kotrc Gambit with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4. All well and good if that's what 4.b4 is going to be called. Directly above that entry, howevere, there was another B01 entry which stopped at 3...Qa5. Since this line had no generally accepted common name it was probably just labelled "Scandinavian" or may have even been blank. I am speculating that whoever was working on the extended ECO codes saw the entry immediately above "Mieses-Kotrc Gambit" and wrongly assumed that it must be called the "Mieses-Kotrc Variation". From here this error got replicated all over the internet, and the name has even been extended to include all of 2...Qxd5. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Found "Kotrc-Mieses Gambit" for 4.b4 in MCO 11 (1972). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: found an earlier reference. Gambits Accepted, A Study of Opening Sacrifices by L. Elliott Fletcher (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1954). https://archive.org/details/bwb_W6-BEE-899/page/157/mode/1up?q=Kotrch MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: 8th (1952) edition of MCO has Kotrch (sic) -Mieses Gambit. [3]MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: 7th (1946) edition. "The text move is attributed to Kotrc". https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106012863871&seq=45 MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: MCO editor Walter Korn, who took over for the 7th edition, seems to be the missing link. He was born in Prague and probably knew both Mieses and Kotrc personally. He would at least have been familiar with his writings in both Czech and German. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK so the trail runs cold at MCO 7. Kotrc's writings are not easy to find whether in Czech or German, and there's no guarantee that any of them mention the Scandinavian let alone the 4.b4 gambit. None of his games in the databases feature a Scandinavian on either side of the board. MCO 6 (edited by Fine) includes mention of 4.b4 but no mention of Kotrc. It's possible that by virtue of being part of the Prague chess scene, Korn had first-hand personal knowledge of Kotrc and his association with 4.b4, which would otherwise be undocumented. I can't prove this, but I can point out the fact that Korn was from Prague, meaning he likely knew Kotrc personally, and let readers draw their own conclusions. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has any (ignoring 4.b4) legitimate terminology involving Mieses appeared during your research? E.g. it seems he usually avoided c6, interestingly. Looks like lichess (in addition to having the Mieses-Kotrc error) calls (after 3...Qa5 4.d4) 4...Nf6 instead of 4...c6 (which is now more often delayed) the Mieses Variation. Dayshade (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Companion to Chess has a Mieses Variation in the Vienna (2...Nf6 3.g3, I thought it was called the Smyslov Variation but whatever), and another in the Scotch, and the Mieses Opening 1.d3. 4...Nf6 is just another main line move as far as I can tell, as noted in the main line section it can be reached by various move orders. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]