Scotch commentary

Firstly, the Scotch does have the reputation of [a] high number of draws (many exchanges, seemingly little advantage) as most of you pointed out. That's probably the reason why elite GMs don't ever play the Scotch, at least, I could not remember seeing the Scotch in any recent major tournaments. However, it may be me, or just me, that finds the Scotch the one and only ideal (dream) position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6…Let me explain.

Upon the fundamental opening themes, development, centre control etcetera… the typical continuation plan would be to attack on the queenside(whichever non-castled side) and usually the queenside pawns want to be as mobile as possible. Looking at major good alternative positions(eg.1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc5 Ruy Lopez or even 3.Bc4(the name depends on what Black follows right?) and 2.Bc4 Bishop’s opening. All these have the same flaws of hidering the queenside assault IMO. In the Ruy Lopez, the 3.Bb5 Bishop seems out of place, and why bother to threaten capture on the c6 Knight when the Black Knight is considered misplaced(Blocking the c-pawn, same idea of the Queenside advancement) The same things goes for either 2.Bc4 and/or 3.Bc4. Now I’m not condemning these famous, well established opening systems, I’ll be an idiot to do so. But my point is that there are still characteristics or reasons why the Scotch is superior in some ways as compared to the other major popular alternatives. Not forgetting that 3.Nc3 Petroff’s 3 Knights game is also suffering from this ‘flaw’.

Also, if anyone still remembers the idea of not placing the Bishop out too early. If I remembered what I read a few years ago correctly, the reason to develop Knights before Bishops was that Bishops develop faster to any ideal squares that Knights. Not that I can fault it, but I think this reason even looks abit lame to me now. It simply takes one move to get to the Natural Knight position(Nf3 for 0-0’s) and a minimum of 2 moves to get a Bishop onto another square! While the counter against this is that a Bishop can open it’s scope within one move, my counter is that Knights don’t even need 1 pawn move to open it’s scope. Anyway, the bigger picture is that I feel the positioning values of the Bishops depend largely on the pawn formations, and moving the Bishop into action at the 2nd or 3rd move may be a premature act- they may be misplaced as pawn formations can still laargely change. Also, a piece out in action also suggests that it’ll be traded off easier, which again, may not be what those “double Bishop” fanatics would agree upon.

Hence, I suggest 3.d4 to be the more ‘idealistic move’. following 3…exd4 4.Nxd4, 4…Bc5 and/or maybe evem 4…Qf6 aren’t really much of a concern… “alive play” can still be easy for White but the real counter is indeed 4…Nf6! highlighting the characteristical flaw of 1.e4(comparable to 2…d6 Sicilian, ie:1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6…)5.Nxc3 bxc3 White made Black produce doubled c pawns, but Black has practical chances with a open b file and the c8 Bishop has more options.

From the same blog:

>I used to play the Scotch as my second White opening (if I didn't feel like playing the Ruy Lopez), but now I dislike the awkwardness of the first two moves, like two kids that have been told to dance by their parents, it generally doesn't lead to a good dance/game.