I play a lot at the lower levels so I must contend with Scholar's Mates. Here's a recurring blunder I see from people attempting Scholar's Mates against the Sicilian. I've also attempted to explain the psychology of their blunders from my perspective as an inexperienced player as well.  I hope this will help other novice players against the Scholar's Mate. The following is from a game I just played in which white turned the blunder into a double-blunder, something that seems to happen about half the time if the first blunder occurs.

1    e4    c5
2    Nf3    d6
3    Bc4    Nc6
4    Ng5?!    e6
5    Qf3??    Qxg5
6.   d4??    Qxc1

On move four, pawn to e6 protects against the mate but also creates a discovered attack on white's knight. I have noticed that about 25% of the time the person attempting the Scholar's Mate will then bring his queen to f3 and  leave the knight hanging.

Why does this happen so often? I think it's more than just  people trying the Scholar's Mate are inexperienced, I think it's that this becomes their opening and they do it again and again. Often openings become automatic and people don't think about them.  In addition to that this it's not only an opening but a checkmate attempt as well, and when people are trying for a checkmate often they become so focused on getting the checkmate they don't pay attention to anything else. I believe it's a combination of all three things - inexperience,  the automation of an opening, and the tunnel vision of a checkmate attempt, that make this blunder so common.

After queen takes knight on g5 the best move for white is to castle. However, about 50% of the time white will immediately move his pawn to d4 instead, mistakenly thinking he is creating a discovered attack on the queen with his bishop on c1 while at the same time attacking the c5 pawn. This would work if white were castled, as it is, it allows black to take the bishop with check and white must move his queen to d1 to avoid losing his rook on h1. At which point black can take the pawn on b2 and then take the pawn on d4 when the knight moves to protect the rook.

Why is this double-blunder so common? I think it's because after making the first blunder they have a spike of anger or panic or whatever, and act hastily.

If they don't make the double blunder and simply castle (or move pawn to h4 which I've seen a lot as well - as trying to open the h-file seems to be the main back-up plan of the Scholar's mate people if their first plan fails) then I think the best move is to immediately move the queen back to d8.

Here's the moves he wrote on a board:

Thanks for that Xbigboy.

I have seen people who literally play the Scholar's Mate as their opening in every game and have done it thousands of times. They've actually seemed to have developed their own "theory" on the opening and know the ins-and-outs of it. Some of these long-time Scholar's Mate players, while still being patzers, have actually come up with some novel tricks utilizing the queen's control of the a8-h1 diagonal. One against the Sicilian I've seen involves bringing the bishop out to b5 giving check, and if black brings bishop to d7 to defend they move their bishop back to c4. The point of this is to create a weakness at b7 that has possibilities once the queen is brought out to f3 if black is not careful. Another I saw involved a knight sacrifice, that if the knight was taken would have allowed the queen to capture the rook at a8.

I think that when queens are brought out early it's unsound and the attacks are able to be countered, but careful play is required from both sides. In a normal opening there's some breathing room while the players get their pieces out. With Scholar's Mate attempts there is none of that, it becomes somewhat sharper and that's another reason I think these Scholar's Mate games are fraught with blunders.

I've noticed that every time someone goes for the Scholar's Mate, they always play the exact same moves every time to the point that I have every move I make presisely planned ten moves ahead. I literally don't even have to think about my next moves because it's just too much deja vu lol.

I agree for the most part Foriz, but some of the obsessive Scholar's Mate players have developed little tricks. They expect that the Scholar's Mate will fail and want to try to use the queen's control of the long diagonal to try a secondary trick. By "obsessive Scholar's Mate players" I mean the subset of people who seem to play chess for the sole purpose of trying to get a Scholar's Mate - I guess it makes them feel good about themselves to humiliate someone else or something. There's this one guy on lichess ( he's actually rated fairly high for someone who would try this opening, over 1200 last I checked) plays the Scholar's Mate or Fool's Mate in every single game and he's played thousands of times.

As for the normal Scholar's Mate players, they will vary the orders, and I've noticed that sometimes they'll try and catch you off gaurd by delaying the mate or fork attempt on f7 as long as possible, so the board gets more crowded and it's slightly harder to see coming. They'll also bring their queen out to h5 instead of f3 sometimes.

Also once it fails if black castles, it's sometimes not an ideal situation with the queen and knight still in front of the black king, and the bishops able to be easily brought over. There's another thing they seem to try a lot, where they'll scoot their queen from f3 to g3 and then bring their bishop to h6. If black doesn't see this coming it will force him to move pawn to g6 to defend and lose the rook for a bishop.

A recurring blunder I see from people trying the Scholar's Mate

Wafflemaster, I'm not really sure I know what you mean with your comment to be honest.

I play the Sicilian in response to e4 so I never see the Scholar's Mate attempt in the *strict* definition of that sequence you posted. I guess I should write "a recurring blunder I see from people attempting early f7 attacks against the Sicilian". Is that what you were trying to say?

I was saying that 1.e4 with 2.Qh5 and 3.Bc4 is a mistake I see when people play the Scholar's mate.

i.e. playing for the scholar's mate is itself the mistake

But yes, in the Sicilian Bc4 is easily met with e6 and d5.  Your line where they drop multiple pieces is a bit much.  If you're seeing that often then time to find stronger opponents!

Here's how most of my games play against Scholar's Mate.

The above game was played against someone with a higher rating than you would expect, he was in the 1100s. The double blunder where they lose their bishop is a bit much, but leaving the knight hanging on g5 is surprisingly common and I've seen it several times against multiple opponents, that's partly why when I see this attempt I develop my queenside knight first giving a clear line for this blunder to happen. Afterwards they typically try to attack the queen on g5 with pawn to h4 or by castling and moving the d pawn forward. Which is why it's best to retreat the queen right away. This time the person either forgot to castle first or didn't realise moving the d pawn would leave his bishop exposed. Probably the anger and shock from making the first blunder had muddied his thinking.

Well, playing the Sicilian this is often how the early f7 attacks look. Maybe I've seen some people play the Parham but I played one guy who seemed to have invented a novel trick for Scholar's Mate attempt specifically against the Sicilian where he would bring his bishop to b5 first and when I moved my bishop to d7 he moved his back to c4, and then when the f7 attack failed he tried to use this pawn weakness at b7. When the white queen is at f3 black has to be wary of the long diagonal and especially the rook at a8. It's all easy enough to defend but if someone's not paying attention to that diagonal and is just thinking about defending f7 they could get into trouble.

This was a response to the Scholar's Mate that I devised when I was first starting out in chess and every game was either a scholar's mate or an attempted scholar's mate.

Yeah. I've seen this dozens of times also. It seems like the game goes from the first few opening moves to... "and the rest is just a matter of technique" -- in no time flat.

Wow, that's a cool idea GreenCastleBlock, I'll have to try that.

Though in my experience white usually brings their knight to f3 or h3 before they bring their queen out, sometimes they bring the knight out to f3 first and I think "yay we're going into the open Sicilian", then comes bishop to c4 which is still a common move in response to the Sicilian and not necessarily bad as there's a strategy where they retreat bishop back to b3 (or a2 if they've moved their pawn) and then plan to open the f file and create pin possibilities on the f7 square later in the game, but then on the third move knight will swing around to g5 and I'm just like "oh, ok".

Also, perhaps you can advise me on this. I like to play the Sicilian Dragon however, I have heard the moves e6 and g6 don't mix. If the move of e6 is provoked by an early f7 attack should I then not franchietto the bishop on g7?

Some overlap perhaps, but they are two distinct threads as this one is more talking about early f7 attacks in response to the Sicilian (Which I don't believe is possible to go into the Parham against in the strict sense) and the other thread is assuming 1. e4 e5.

I would describe the Scholar's Mate as any attempt to checkmate in 4 moves with Q+B on f7, regardless of Black's moves.  The Parham is specificially 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5.

GreenCastleBlock, what about the soundness of playing g6 and a dragon set-up if e6 has been provoked? Should someone avoid e6 and g6 together?

The combination of ..e6 and ..g6 on the surface weakens a lot of squares but actually it's quite a good setup... against the Grand Prix, Closed Sicilian, Anti-Sicilians, etc.  The only time the weakness of ..e6+..g6 can really be exposed is in an Open sicilian where White is playing d4 and opening lines in the center, specifically Black's d file is an issue.