1. e4 c5 2.Bc4?


e4 c5 bc4 nf6


e4 c5 bc4 f5 Michigan countergambit


Kingfisher wrote:

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! blitz.pngbullet.pngblitz.pnggrin.png


It's kind of lame, but White can make a lame opening move and not do more than go =.

jengaias wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:

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.


The Italian game meets the Sicilian.  It's like a Roman derby.

It seems like white always plays a4 before I can get b5 in and I believe there's a video on this site that recommends d5, winning a tempo on the bishop but my opponents seem to always seems turn it into a french exchange. I haven't really been punishing the 2.Bc4 so far but hopefully that'll change. Maybe my plan A should be a quick d5 instead of trying for a6 and b5 right off the bat.

Here's how Nakamura played against 2.Bc4. He never tried to trade off the B with his N on b8.