1...d5 is the most forcing move available to black after 1.e4. white is basically forced to go into main lines to get any advantage, the few sidelines allow black easy equality. if white can't prove an advantage in the main lines, then it's basically pointless to play 1.e4 against a scandinavian player.

against other moves, white has some room for creativity.

french defense - there's the tarrasch, exchange variation, main line 1.Nc3, etc, there's even stuff like the milner-barry.

sicilian - i don't think i need to list all the anti-sicilians available to white here.

1...e5 - there's the scotch, the italian, the king's gambit, the ruy, etc...

caro-kann - there's main lines, the advance, panov-botvinnik, fantasy variation

pirc - white can do whatever he wants and maintain a space advantage.

i once saw a video about the KIA that claimed that after 1.e4, white can set up a king's indian attack against any black response. the video conveniently failed to mention how to play a KIA against the scandinavian. :)

i'm not claiming the white doesn't get a slight theoretical plus against 1...d5 with best play, i'm just pointing out that white has only one way to do this. sidelines against the scandinavian are much less effective than other non-mainlines like the alapin sicilian, the panov botvinnik in caro-kann, the scotch, etc. if black knows what he's doing in the mainlines, it's a very effective weapon.

i was reading earlier kibitzing on today's game of the day, which is a scandinavian, and also, this morning i happened to see a guy on ICC's profile and one of his notes was <i hate people that play the scandinavian>. it's a sentiment that i've heard in many places.

Well, I wouldn't exactly put the Scandinavian on the level of those openings - they are real surprise weapons, whereas the Scandinavian is played regularly, although not exclusively, by some GMs. In this database there are 883 Budapests vs 4492 Scandinavians to prove my point. Even less Albins.

A player like Tiviakov has played the Scandinavian 41 times in this database, that means several times a year. I doubt any top GM plays Budapest or Albin that much in classical games.

Theoretically it is also pretty sound. However, as <blacksburg> points out, the critical lines are few, and therefore I think interest on top level is more limited than in e.g. the Caro-Kann or Sicilian. I think it is also viewed as rather drawish.

in this case, be prepared for the icelandic gambit, 3...e6, which is a lot of fun for black if white doesn't know his stuff.

the thing about the BDG is that most people that know it well are 1.d4 players. there's no way to get into it after 1.e4 except for the scandinavian.

but if you're black, you can't be scared of the BDG. if you are, then after 1.d4, you'll be scared to play 1...d5, which would be absurd.

<Play 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4?! I have done so succesfully on club level.>

Yes, Another way for black and white. I would prefer for white the lines without e5, play a quiet open position (with a little bite), 3. ed:.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 cxd4 6.Bc4 Qd6 7.O-O

click for larger view

Main differences: Nd2 vs.c3, pawn d4 and the absence of the c pawn.

In the scandinavian Nc3 often has to move anyway and Nd2 in this line seems good because of Nb3-d4. So I don't think that's it. I think it is pawn d4 and the lack of white centre pawns that make the difference. Also white will waste time winning the pawn back.

Look at the different pawn structures in the typical lines:

click for larger view

click for larger view

I continued your line to:

click for larger view

When white wins the pawn back it will force him to trade some material and to diminish his development advantage. And in the end white has no pawns in the centre-when in the scandinavian white always has d4 for central control. Additionally the c line and the a-b pawns may be used to attack white's c queenside or the open file can be used to exchange pieces for a draw.

click for larger view

click for larger view

All things being equal, moving your queen early and letting your opponent get ahead in development are Bad Things. That doesn't mean they lead invariably to defeat, or that they can't be counterbalanced by Good Things like knocking out your opponent's center pawn and giving yourself a half-open file to work with. But you do get the occasional catastrophe in the Tarrasch line you cite: Larsen vs Seirawan, 1982

That's probably why many of the ultrasound types prefer to suffer an isolated pawn in the Tarrasch rather than play 4....Qxd5.

<So I don't think that's it. I think it is pawn d4 and the lack of white centre pawns that make the difference.>

you may be right, but it seems counterintuitive to me. in the tarrasch variation in question, wouldn't the lack of center pawns simply increase the value of the lead in development? open lines are necessary to utilize a development lead.

<That's probably why many of the ultrasound types prefer to suffer an isolated pawn in the Tarrasch rather than play 4....Qxd5.>