I don't like playing Bc4 early against Sicilian. It can be useful depending on situation but definitely not my top choice. And that line you showed is pretty fine to play with black.
I mean in the large databases there are tens of housands of games and the score with 2. Bc4 is between 20-30% depending on what Black plays. There are about 20 second moves which have a close-to-50% score so discussing the 21rst ranked move is not my mug of beer.
Kings Gambit has on the other hand a positive score in the databases- does that make it a good opening?
(rhetorical question- it does actually. Since we are talking about practical results by looking the database; in the thread we are talking about objective evaluation)
As for the real deal- there are opening lines which promise black (or white) a large advantage unless the oponent knows the refutation. Or in short 'Opening Traps', but not booby traps, but ones that even I can fall in. E.g. all Qb6xb2 jumps in Najdorf/Steiniz. The scores might be the best, and still it will be an inferior choice (except the Nakamura line in Steiniz and the Kaparov line in Najdorf).
Comparable there might be a novelty like the one from Vallejo Pons in Nimzo: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 (absolute mainline) b6!? And unless you really know 5.e4 c5 6.d5 exd5 7.exd5 Qe7 8.Ne2!! with a pawn sacrifice you already are worse. Or final argument 6.h3 in Najdorf is a mainline now. 6.a3 in Najdorf was indeed used succesfully by Carlsen, Grichuk, in terms of getting an advatage. Nevertheless, if you forget the recent 5 years and you check the stats of these moves only the worst of the worst would play them and your concluion would be the same, dear @Sarg0n. Also there are a lot of cases where a variation was good, until the refutation was found (e.g. 2.Bc4 is bad until someone plays it well), and starting from then on the reults got better. Did you check all 2.Bc4 games, or just the one with the right plan? (like you dont need to check 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 to evaluate 1.e4. You usually dont consider the results of bad lines, but conider only mainlines.) Same here, did you check the results of Bc4 lines that are played right, with equal oponents?
And the final last point, who cares about the results of 2.Bc4 in the Database. I'm not telling you about how easy it is to play 2.Bc4. I claim that I can play it succesfully for a win against any oponent. Including you. You can prove only this 1 way- you show me the clearcut equalizer. If you claim that I win since I am stronger, you miss the point. You will have no issues to prove me that 1.g4, 2.f4 is wrong. Or that exchange French is equal. So it is not about the question of who is stronger but simply by who is right.
Again, I admit that you don'T have to waste your time with that and you consider it wasted (since chances are high that only weaker players will play 2.Bc4 and you can beat them even without analying the line). But this is a practical solution whereas claming the line itself is wrong that way is simply over your head
(rhetorical question- it does actually. Since we are talking about practical results by looking the database; in the thread we are talking about objective evaluation)
As for the real deal- there are opening lines which promise black (or white) a large advantage unless the oponent knows the refutation. Or in short 'Opening Traps', but not booby traps, but ones that even I can fall in. E.g. all Qb6xb2 jumps in Najdorf/Steiniz. The scores might be the best, and still it will be an inferior choice (except the Nakamura line in Steiniz and the Kaparov line in Najdorf).
Comparable there might be a novelty like the one from Vallejo Pons in Nimzo: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 (absolute mainline) b6!? And unless you really know 5.e4 c5 6.d5 exd5 7.exd5 Qe7 8.Ne2!! with a pawn sacrifice you already are worse. Or final argument 6.h3 in Najdorf is a mainline now. 6.a3 in Najdorf was indeed used succesfully by Carlsen, Grichuk, in terms of getting an advatage. Nevertheless, if you forget the recent 5 years and you check the stats of these moves only the worst of the worst would play them and your concluion would be the same, dear @Sarg0n. Also there are a lot of cases where a variation was good, until the refutation was found (e.g. 2.Bc4 is bad until someone plays it well), and starting from then on the reults got better. Did you check all 2.Bc4 games, or just the one with the right plan? (like you dont need to check 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 to evaluate 1.e4. You usually dont consider the results of bad lines, but conider only mainlines.) Same here, did you check the results of Bc4 lines that are played right, with equal oponents?
And the final last point, who cares about the results of 2.Bc4 in the Database. I'm not telling you about how easy it is to play 2.Bc4. I claim that I can play it succesfully for a win against any oponent. Including you. You can prove only this 1 way- you show me the clearcut equalizer. If you claim that I win since I am stronger, you miss the point. You will have no issues to prove me that 1.g4, 2.f4 is wrong. Or that exchange French is equal. So it is not about the question of who is stronger but simply by who is right.
Again, I admit that you don'T have to waste your time with that and you consider it wasted (since chances are high that only weaker players will play 2.Bc4 and you can beat them even without analying the line). But this is a practical solution whereas claming the line itself is wrong that way is simply over your head
A position can only be won or drawn. That‘s all I know.
I don‘t play 2.Bc4 and I don’t recommend it if asked. But everyone is entitled to check it out himself. Nuff said.
I don‘t play 2.Bc4 and I don’t recommend it if asked. But everyone is entitled to check it out himself. Nuff said.
Most probably 2 Bc4 is a draw with best play from both sides, just like 2 Nf3, 2 Be2, 2 a3, so all are objectively equivalent.
2 Bc4 at least has the advantage that it forces black to think on his own.
A fun line is 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3 Nf6 5 Bf4 d5 6 Nb5.
The line 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3 Nf6 5 Nf3 d5 6 Bb5 leads to a reverse Nimzo Indian Defence.
The line 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3 Nf6 5 f4 d5 6 Bb3 is even sharper.
There are plenty of possibilities for both sides.
2 Bc4 at least has the advantage that it forces black to think on his own.
A fun line is 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3 Nf6 5 Bf4 d5 6 Nb5.
The line 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3 Nf6 5 Nf3 d5 6 Bb5 leads to a reverse Nimzo Indian Defence.
The line 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3 Nf6 5 f4 d5 6 Bb3 is even sharper.
There are plenty of possibilities for both sides.
I don't play 1.e4 and would not recommend it if asked. But everyone i entitled to check it out himself. Nuff said. Also- if 1.a3 is drawn by best play, and Sicilian mainline as you play it(?) is draw, then there is no difference and you should play 1.a3 as equally often as 1.e4?? Or maybe there is more to a position than just the evaluation whether it is drawn or not?
Nice to have such eloquent and compromising people to talk to who are not fixated on their own opinion only. Always only caring about having right, right? If you really do think Bc4 is worse than just prove it. If you don't care that is fine too. But don't state 2.Bc4 is a bad choice (don't forget about 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4, just to deny the e6+d5 option), if you have no idea. All you did so far (3 times in a row) was just to state you don't play it. What does it prove? Same as I above- I don't play 1.e4 therefore it is bad. You can be proud of yourself
Nice to have such eloquent and compromising people to talk to who are not fixated on their own opinion only. Always only caring about having right, right? If you really do think Bc4 is worse than just prove it. If you don't care that is fine too. But don't state 2.Bc4 is a bad choice (don't forget about 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4, just to deny the e6+d5 option), if you have no idea. All you did so far (3 times in a row) was just to state you don't play it. What does it prove? Same as I above- I don't play 1.e4 therefore it is bad. You can be proud of yourself
@Strategymaster Again I guess it all depends on what you call a "good" move or a "bad" move.
- Chess is too complicated for us to tell for sure mathematically what is best (maybe future computers will show White has better chances with 1.a3, who knows...)
- What works best for you may be very different than what works best for others, due to your playing style, your knowledge of different variations, your opponent etc.
- What works best for people on average is also hard to judge precisely, but is perhaps the only "objective" way to label moves as good or bad. And in this context I would guess that on average, 2. Bc4 scores worse than e.g. 2. d4.
Note I don't think that the earlier statistics of @Sarg0n are very reliable, as there is a high correlation between main lines and playing strength; 2. Bc4 might score poorly because it is played often by amateurs (who learned 2. Bc4 is a decent move against 1... e5, so why not the Sicilian?) and less often by masters. I would expect 2. Bc4 to be at least equal for white, but "current consensus" I guess is that it is less promising for getting an advantage out of the opening with white against a well-prepared opponent than some alternatives.
- Chess is too complicated for us to tell for sure mathematically what is best (maybe future computers will show White has better chances with 1.a3, who knows...)
- What works best for you may be very different than what works best for others, due to your playing style, your knowledge of different variations, your opponent etc.
- What works best for people on average is also hard to judge precisely, but is perhaps the only "objective" way to label moves as good or bad. And in this context I would guess that on average, 2. Bc4 scores worse than e.g. 2. d4.
Note I don't think that the earlier statistics of @Sarg0n are very reliable, as there is a high correlation between main lines and playing strength; 2. Bc4 might score poorly because it is played often by amateurs (who learned 2. Bc4 is a decent move against 1... e5, so why not the Sicilian?) and less often by masters. I would expect 2. Bc4 to be at least equal for white, but "current consensus" I guess is that it is less promising for getting an advantage out of the opening with white against a well-prepared opponent than some alternatives.
The white advantage is a myth from previous centuries.
2.Bc4 rightfully deserves a dubious mark. It also violates the rule of opening which is to develop the Knight before the rest of the pieces. 2...e6! equalizes on the spot.
@PenguinHQ
I wouldn't call the "knights before bishops" phrase a "rule". I would call it general advice. Sure, in most positions, you should develop your knights before your bishops. But not all. Not even almost all. Thus the abuse of the word "rule".
I wouldn't call the "knights before bishops" phrase a "rule". I would call it general advice. Sure, in most positions, you should develop your knights before your bishops. But not all. Not even almost all. Thus the abuse of the word "rule".
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.