i think the point was that no, Magnus Carlsen didn’t expect to win with Scholar’s Mate but that white’s set-up is legitimate and has been used by high-rated players before.
sarcasm doesn’t play as well in print though so i don’t know if Mr Lafferty was being serious or not.
It was something of a rhetorical question. I seriously doubt that Carlsen expected to win outright with a Scholar’s Mate, but strange things can and do at times happen. He certainly didn’t expect to lose.
I do recall, as has been noted on this thread, that Nakamura played the SM often in rapid games ten or twelve years ago. Naka played it, and lost, in Gibraltar in 2005.
See: theguardian.com/sport/2005/apr/30/chess mentioning Parnham.
From Barden’s 2005 column:
"The event of the week which will most interest average players is the game below. The 17-year-old US champion Hikaru Nakamura has gone for unconventional openings before but his choice of 1 e4 e5 2 Qh5?! in a key game in Copenhagen stunned experts.
Beginners may fall for 2 Qh5 g6?? 3 Qxe5+ and 4 Qxh8, or for 2…Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6?? 4 Qxf7 Scholar’s Mate, but these are primitive traps…" [emphasis added] Not falling for Scholar’s Mate doesn’t mean it wasn’t attempted.
Kevin’s point is that your statement above, that Nakamura PLAYED the SM, is inaccurate. You can say he “attempted” it, which is suspect since attempted implies he thought the opponent might fall for it, but he absolutely 100% did not PLAY it.
It has little to do with angel’s dancing on the head of a pin, or the claim of Barden as an authority.
In this case, Barden’s comment is absurd. If one looks at the games of Greco and Polerio, one might assume that the point of 2 Bc4 or 3 Bc4 was only to sac on f7. Yet Karpov’s games with the Guicco Piano were quite different from Greco’s. At one time Greco was also an authority, and he guided chess players for decades at least.
Barden has been a wonderful writer. His book The Ruy Lopez: Winning Chess with 1 P-K4 was very important when it was published in 1963 and beyond. He was an important writer for some time. But would we consider him a consummate theoretician today?
While Barden criticizes the opening, my database shows 390 games with it. Of these, only 3 were played before 1970 and only 9 before 1985.
Out of this white won 132, lost 204 and drew 54.
50 of the games were played where both players were 2000+. Here there were 12 wins, 22 draws and 16 losses. None of the White wins were fewer than 23 moves.
In no sense were the strong players attempting Scholars Mate.
You must realize, Scot, that some people argue for sport and NEVER admit they are wrong even when they are clearly proven wrong. I could mention a government official with that attribute.
I had an opponent who, after I dropped a piece and the opening and sacked another to get done play asserted after he resigned that he really won the game because nothing mattered after he won the piece. When I told another person about he said “That guy never loses a post-morten. Just a lot of games.
Well, I don’t know. Whatever. But I still have no particular problem with Brian’s post. He graciously included the game score with annotations (cribbed from the column, I suppose), which I found helpful. At the time, I didn’t think it was a big enough deal that I should thank him for it, but after all this pettiness, I’m doing it now.
I recall a time when I was an inexperienced, impertinent 1500’-ish high school student who had just watched a lecture at University of Wisconsin-Parkside by GM Walter Browne following his excellent win at the Hoogovens Tournament at Wijk ann Zee 1974. Browne lectured about his game against GM Quinteros (who had earned the title in 1973.) Browne no doubt picked the game because of his victory at Hoogovens, the fact that Quinteros was a friend of Fischer and had earned his GM title recently (1973) - and that it was an instructive game in terms of principles. Quinteros had provocatively brought his Queen out early, to threaten (and eventually grab) a pawn, then two – and Browne nicely punished the attempt. Browne was rightfully proud of the game and happy to show it.
Inexperienced as I was, and showing both my lack of understanding and social ineptness, when Browne took questions I asked how a GM like Quinteros could make such an obvious error that nearly any novice knows to avoid - to not bring out the Queen early and grab pawns. Browne, perhaps not known for being the most even tempered person, was clearly irritated with my question but answered it - and frankly I didn’t understand his answer about GMs knowing when to try to break general principles (since clearly Quinteros had been wrong in doing so.) If I had to guess I would imagine that other attendees were also irritated with the way I phrased my question, since it was (not on purpose but ineptly) demeaning of Quinteros and of Browne’s achievement. It also showed my lack of understanding of the thought processes involved. I learned little about how GMs approached that game, and illustrated my own lack of understanding beyond all doubt.
Browne then CRUSHED me in the accompanying simul.
Years later, as I matured and learned the importance of representing good sportsmanship and offering respect, I’d realized the mistake I made. If I had known Browne, I would have offered him an apology. But I tried to apologize by not being dismissive of other chess players - going forward.
Mr. Lafferty is a retired adult, not a socially inept high school student. He’s basically just been dismissive of one of the most accomplished chess players in history by suggesting that the World Champion had the audacity to approach the game against a Master by playing for Scholars Mate (which of course is not what was happening.)
I thought that Brian’s question (“Did Carlsen Really Think Scholar’s Mate Would Work??”) was not entirely serious; therefore I did not react as if he were being “dismissive” of Carlsen. He just needed a catchy title. Been there, done that, probably many times.
Usually, you and Brian take each other a weensy bit too seriously in these forum. But now, you have both posted interesting games that are well worth playing over. You will probably both return to bicker mode soon, but right now, I’m savoring the moment.
I guess I tend to take Brian seriously because he provides reason to do so; he insists on his point, he offers Barden as an authority. If it were jest, it would seem to take less work. Perhaps Brian strives to be the Skip Bayless of the forums.
