Turning a scandi into a French

A french with the bishop outside the pawn chain is the dream for any french player. Likewise a caro-kann where c5 can be played in one move is the dream for any caro-kann player.

If I wanted to get out of mainline scandinavian theory I'd much rather play this -

I see no reason at all to avoid the mainline. It’s very good for White. Just develop your pieces to natural squares.

The above highly comprehensive analysis should convince you of the mainline’s strength.

Equalizing the experience differential would be the reason.

I agree. White is just better after 2.exd5. The only reason you might want to avoid the mainline is if you suspect your opponent is better versed in the Scandi than you. But then 2.e5 is not the way, as most Scandi players will easily exploit the flaws in this essentially 'perfect French defense' transposition. Better is something like 2.Nf3, transposing into a Tennison gambit. The Tennison itself is a pretty dubious line, but it's quite playable on the intermediate levels, and you might catch a Scandi player off guard with it. Also possible is something like what I like to call the "ignore the center" approach with 2.a3 (usually a transposition of the Anderssen Opening, 1.a3). The idea is to allow black to capture on e4, then follow up with Nc3 and play it as a gambit, developing pieces while attacking black's extra pawn. I've seen this tried in blitz games a few times. Pretty risky, but then so is crossing the street. Here's a game from a recent Titled Tuesday. Keep in mind GM Hambleton is rated over 300 points higher than his FM opponent.......

https://www.chess.com/games/view/17156059

The thing is - you should probably assume the opponent who plays the scandi is always going to be more well versed in the lines. Assuming you're playing an opponent of equal skill and prep... which you should assume, you want to aim to beat opponents of equal strength. Because presumably they're playing this against e4 consistently, which will be like half of their games as black.

But for serious purposes I'd probably look for sidelines as I went deeper into the main line over trying to branch out immediately.

Still, the Closed Scandi 2. Nc3 I don't underestimate - it can transpose into the caro-kann or french - I had a player do this just yesterday, he wound up in the paulsen french and I play that all the time, he wasn't even a french player. So that's fantastic. But after something like 2... d4 you rotate your knight to g3 and you actually get an italian style attacking position, just a hypermodern version. To refute this the Scandi player will need to be a serious one - if they're just sort of dabbling in the Scandi like alot of people do they will have problems.

Oh yeah! I completely forgot about 2.Nc3, really the only legitimate alternative to exd5. And I even read your post from yesterday! Duh. I was too busy pontificating on these other stupid lines.

If the Scandi player really knows the line well white can end up in a undesirable spot but they'll need to know the lines like 12 moves deep. It's still playable at that point just not very pretty. Something like this if I remember. It's not something you'd just play spontaneously but a serious Scandi player could know it -

The other thing is the Scandi player can try to transpose the closed back into the scandi... white can avoid this with d3 but he gives up any engine edge if he does this, so it's a decision he has to make.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's not too common players know the lines enough. More common via the 1. e4 move order than the 1. Nc3 move order though.

Who cares if the opponent is better prepared in the Scandi? Just beat them anyway They can learn all the opening theory in the world but if I play good moves I’ll beat them in the middlegame anyway.

It's more strategic to assume the opponent is of equal strength, then work to undermine any advantages they could have, over assuming every player you encounter will suck and so you should just win. A better argument would be that the objective soundness of the main lines outweighs any benefit from equalizing their experience via the sidelines. The argument that you're making is there is no existing reason to diverge from the main line... that argument is nonsense.

Probably in this case, at a very high level where you assume the opponent will know the refutations to 2. Nc3... sure, again if I had to really choose a serious line I'd look for divergences within the main line.

I agree, i usually just take the pawn and I do well against it. People mainly use it as a blitz weapon as they can make fairly brainless moves fast. I feel like switching it up to a french advance could really throw some of them for a loop. 2. e5 is only seen in about 1/45 scandi games, and if they play the scandi as black against e4 Im just going to assume they don't play the french often. I really like the french advance as white lately which is why I started playing e5. If they go right into the milner barry im very confident I will win as I know that one about 10 moves deep.

I don't think I've ever played a closed scandi and that is interesting. I like the devlopment for white but that space disadvantage is not something I would be a fan of.

At first glance it seems ugly, but it feels much different than any other hypermodern opening I've played - there's almost no point where you even notice you have a space problem, because the minor pieces are very all active... it feels just like an italian. And the patterns are just the same as occur in the italian. It's because the "cramped" knight is actually rotating to g3, where it wants to go and eye f5. Infact... you sometimes get a stronger kingside attack because the knight rotates there faster, and the center is closed... if black plays too much on the queenside it can be a big problem for him.

The Scandinavian is what I play. After 1 e4 d5 2 Nc3 the repertoire book I use gives 2...dxe4 3 Nxe4 Qd5. Surprisingly I have rarely faced 2 Nc3. Maybe once or twice but it's been so long I hardly recall. I don't know the lines at all from lack of playing it. I should go over that chapter.

I think I actually prefer my opponent play 2 exd5 instead of 2 e5. I guess I should be grateful that 2 e5 just about gives black instant equality but I don't like closed games and sometimes wind up in some trouble against 2 e5. I used to be a Caro Kann player, I especially didn't like 3 e5, and these days everyone and their uncles play it. My results have actually been better with the 3...Qa5 Scandinavian even though the Caro Kann is higher tier. Can't say 3...Qd8. 3...Qd6, nor 2...Nf6 worked so well for me though. Shirov's 7 f4 run me away from 3...Qd6. 3...Qd8 is just too defensive even for me. 2...Nf6 I had the highest hopes for and the worst results.

Woops I meant Qd5. Yeah the idea there is to transpose back into the mainline scandi. Only issue is it's not actually forcing that, because white can play d3 if he wants. But he gives up his engine edge if he does this... so it's not a bad option

https://friend.chess.com/rFHH2

https://www.chess.com/blog/JokerPrank/good-read

very important links guy

I play the following line:

Taking the pawn is the best move for sure

Clearly the OP has no idea how bad 2.e5 really is. The resulting position has ZERO resemblance of the French Defense. Actually, what you have is a Caro-Kann a full tempo up for Black as he will get in the move ...c5 in one move instead of two.

Like I said above this can transpose into the Milner Barry which is probably going to be an L for anyone that doesn’t know that gambit.