Amazing Opening Trick Against Scandinavian Defense(Tennison Gambit)

 I doubt white's 8th move is best.

Then tell us the best move.

I'm pretty sure Qd4 isn't even a good move since it allows Qb5... Nc6 has got to be better since it stops that.

Very nice trap, Ranj-Sake. I think most black players at my level and higher may play the black moves up to 4... Nf6, but nobody will reply 5. Qe2 with 5... Qd5. That is a blunder-level mistake.

I think most players would just let go of the pawn at this stage and concentrate on development.

Oops I think I was thinking 8.Qc8 was already mate Daviderer.

That trap is essentially based on the same ideas as the englund gambit mainline trap with the board positions reversed.

I use this all the time in blitz and bullet. It still amazes me how many people don't know about it. I've even beaten 1800+ rated opponents with it lol. In blitz when I have time to type in chat I'll act all shocked like, oh no I premoved and hung a pawn on move 2!! Then they get all cocky and tell me how much I suck and then.... Kapow! Gimme that queen!

8 Qc8 mate??? If 8Qc8 then 8Qd8

It's 10 Qc8 mate, not 8 Qc8. You are forgetting the queen is on c6 and cannot move to d8.

Doesn't Black get a decent position if he returns the pawn?

 Edit: Dang it. Missed the smothered mate with Nd6#.

this wouldn't work on me.  I'm always watching for check moves and splits, I'd give up a pawn long before letting that crap get me

This position can also arise from the Reti Opening: 1.Nf3, d5 2.e4, dxe4 3.Ng5.

Black is doing quite well after 3...e5. The explorer database on CC lists 7 master level games with 3...e5 and Black scores 86%.

My advice? Avoid - the Scandinavian Defence is solid but a bit passive, White has better ways to proceed than to gambit a pawn and hand Black equality on a plate as early as move 2!

lmao as Black you are fine with allowing the knight to take back your pawn. You ignore it and just develop with the satisfaction that he is out of book. That's why people play the Scandi usually, to avoid theory.

And I wouldn't play that Bf5 ... The 6.Nxf7 sideline looks interesting, though

I think what you said is kinda stupid. People play chess to have fun, not to beat grandmasters or avoid opening moves that Stockfish doesn't like. You think playing unsound gambits is bad?

Actually, looking at the threads you have made on the forum you don't bring much to a discussion ... just another tryhard who doesn't play any games on this site.

2.Nf3 never came to my mind before, but when looking closer at it - this has the right to exist, it will be interesting to try in a blitz game 

Lakdawala's 2013 book on the Scandinavian doesn't even consider 2.Nf3.

That must tell you something, surely?

I agree. But sometimes there arise questions about "applicability" of this or that line. Saying at once, the numeric evaluations of the strong engines are taken just for reference, without relying much on them. Anyhow, if a very strong engine, with the time control 40 moves/40 hours, say, in the position of the Schliemann gambit (or Jaenisch gambit) from the Ruy Lopez - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5, after about 1.5 hour "thinking time" at the depth 40, the engine makes the move 4.d3 showing +0.37 (4.Nc3 +0.33) in White's favor - and we all know at what level 3. ... f5 is played (I mean, over 2700, and even over 2800). The evaluation of the same engine with the same time control of 40 moves/40 hours - the King's Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4 (-0.29); the Sicilian Wing Gambit 1.e4 c5 2.b4 (-0.26); Evans Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 (-0.26) (just for reference, Garry Kasparov as White crushed Vishy Anand in the Evans Gambit); the discussed Tennison Gambit from the Scandinavian defense 1.e4 d5 2.Nf3 (-0.26).

Saying again - the numeric evaluations are just for reference, they are relevant (and for illustrative purposes taken of the same strong engine with the same time control). Just a funny thing - the Schliemann gambit from the Ruy Lopez is considered as correct, whereas the Sicilian Wing Gambit - next to "refuted", and I would not be surprised if a 2700-2800+ chess player said "The Tenisson gambit is incorrect/refuted" (just because it is not used at the high level), whereas the Schliemann gambit is "quite correct and quite playable" (just because they do apply it at the high level)  That is all just thoughts, nothing to be taken seriously.