2. Bc4 !? against the sicilian

I recently created a study about this line :



Contributors are welcomed !

You should really look at the old games of Adolf Andersen. He played this line and had many ideas you do not mention.

@Pickled-Pawns
I really don't recommend this line. It's extremely easy for black to play against.

@Pickled-Pawns, I like @tpr's suggestion! Anderssen's games are almost always exciting. Here are links to three games where he played this line.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001357

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1336600

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1080458

Thanks !

I agree with Irishman964, it's not a very good move.

In the open games (1. e4 e5) black has committed his e-pawn to e5, giving up the option to block the a2-g8 diagonal with e7-e6.
Then the bishop can put pressure on f7 from c4. Here however black can play e6 at any time, making the Bc4 look silly and misplaced.

Moreover black can easily gain a tempo soon, either with e6-d5 or a6-b5, and with Black's c-pawn already on c5, retreating to b3 is not even an option (as c5-c4 would be an annoying follow-up).

So yeah, I wouldn't recommend it. There's a reason it's not played at top levels at all.

#6 @thijscom ...a6-b5 is no problem; white plays d3 to stop ...c4.
White has tactical means to prevent ...d5, as was already found by Anderssen: Bf4 and Nb5.
There is also a brilliant Anderssen game where he refutes ...Na5, just ignoring it and after ...Nxc4 recapturing dxc4, winning on advance in development.
It is not played at top level because it has been forgotten. However, it is a natural continuation. Black plays 1...c5 to make 2 or 3 d4 difficult for white: at the cost of trading a centre pawn d4 for a wing pawn c5. So white settles for d3 instead. To prepare that he first plays his bishop outside of his pawn chain.

@Irishman964 @thijscom I wasn't recommanding this line for white either, in fact the study is about how I intend to face it as Black.

P. S. : Thanks for all your answers.

@tpr Finding a way to equalize as white is not the same as it being a good move to play. White aims for more and the reason it is not played at top level is that black can easily equalize. With 2. Bc4 white maybe goes from "slightly better" and on average say a 55% score against the Sicilian, to "equal" and perhaps a 50% score. So yeah, it's objectively a bad move.

The same arguments hold for e.g. 1. g4. Sure, white is not losing at all after 1. g4, and if white is Anderssen and black is an amateur I'd still bet Anderssen would win, but it will not be because of his good opening choice.

@Pickled-Pawns Ah ok, good ;)

Indeed, I think black should definitely go for an e6-setup to counter white's Bc4. The only lines where white sometimes plays Bc4 in the Sicilian in a sensible manner is when e.g. black plays with ...g6 and the bishop actually serves a purpose on c4, either in the Sicilian Dragon or in some Grand Prix variations. So going for ...g6 instead of ...e6 would only justify white's move.

And as already pointed out before, 2. Bc4 is not a great move, but it's certainly not losing either. One danger for black might be to think that you should "punish" Bc4 and gain an advantage quickly, but Bc4 is not so bad that you can force an advantage with black (at least that's what I'd guess).

So a "calmer" alternative to your early ...d5 lines could be to just play with e6, a6 (threatening b5), develop your pieces, and just make white regret putting the bishop on c4 for a while. The bishop is not doing much on c4 anyway, so white might even voluntarily reposition the bishop later on. Some lines with an early d5 exd5 exd5 allow white to go for exchanges on the e-file and the b5-e8 diagonal - in some lines it might be better to postpone ...d5 a bit.