e4 c5 bc4 f5 Michigan countergambit
However, I remember a while back a member posted a refutation of this line that actually led to loss of material for white.
Refutation of Bowdler attack is the biggest joke of the day!
It's kind of lame, but White can make a lame opening move and not do more than go =.
Everybody is calling it lame but no one knows why.
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4 4.Bc4 is a well known line Spassky played and it is considered good for white(or at least not lame).Many top grandmasters have used it.
Why Bc4 is good on 4th move and lame on 2nd?
There are quite a few errors in this short post. I'll address two quickly:
People DID point out what's wrong with it 9 years ago. It gives up equality on move 2.
The line you posted which Spassky played is ok because the Black N on d4 will need to get repositioned, and white can use that extra tempo to develop in the center. That makes a difference.
e4 c5 bc4 nf6