Im about to study the bishops opening. But before that i hope someone will tell me the main variations in the opening and the plans for both sides.
Mostly the Bishops opening transposes to the Vienna or the Italian, there are very few independant lines.
There are quite a few independent lines (such as the respectable ususov gambit 2...Nf6 3.d4!?), but the popular way to play it is to aim for a trasposition to "king gambit declined" lines.
Can u show me how to tranpose to kings gambit declined lines? thanks! :)
The usual way is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bc5 (Na5 here is solid, but white's better development makes his position the more pleasant to play IMO; Bb4 is also a good option) 5.f4 d6 6.Nf3, a position which is often obtained via a 2.f4 Bc5 move order. Many repertoire books recommend this for black, although my personal impression is that white might be rather happy with a position where he has natural kingside attacking chances without risking much. Probably a very strong player as black can hold easily, but when i see this happening between two average club players 1-0 is the commonest result.
Are u sure u gave me the right move order? cuz after ng4 i dont think white is doing well
I'm sure ;) The aggressive looking 6...Ng4 is not considered very strong AFAIK, 7.Ng5 and Qe2 both being anough for an advantage.
6...Ng4 is not terribly dangerous. Black can reply with Qe2, Rf1 or even Ng5.
6...Bg4 and 6...a6 are the most well-respected moves for Black.
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Ne6 3.d4 usually transposes to the Italian (Two Knight's defense) with 4...Nc6. The "King gambit declined" lines are more often reached by way of the Vienna with 3...Nc6.
The real problem with the Urusov move order is 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Ne6 3.d4 ed4 4.Nf4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dc3 6.bc3 d5! (typical counter) which is scoring great for Black.
There is also 6.0-0 when after 6...0-0! 7.e5 (7.bc3 d5! is again great for Black) d5! 8.ef6 dc4 9.fg7 when Goeller at his Urusov site gives only 9...Kxg7, but 9...Re8! instead leaves Black with a considerable advantage.
Blake, of course the urusov can traspose to the 2 knights, but there are many Urusov lines which can be reached only via a 2.Bc4 move order. And also after 2...Nf6 3.d3 some early c6 lines which are similar, but not identical to some vienna stuff, and so on; but on the whole of course i don't disagree on the fact that 2.Bc4 often trasposes to other openings.
Regarding the traspositions, i don't know what is the commonest path to reach that position (i'm far from sure that is the vienna one, usually black meets f4 with an immediate d5 in that line) but i said king gambit declined rather than vienna to stress the fact that usually white plays 2.Bc4 with the idea of playing an early f4 before developing the king's knight. It's uncommon to play 2.Bc4 if you want your f pawn behind the Nf3.
I couldn't find that many books on the Kings Gambit Declined, but when I play these lines, I usually obtain a nice advantage. The Bishops at c4 and c5 are pretty important. White sometimes plays Na4 to exchange the powerful bishop.
At lower levels, 2.Bc4 is a fairly common way to avoid the Petroff and to get into an Italian.
Sakaev in his Petroff repertoire book says that Black could (and should) meet 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 with 3...c6. Same thing is recommended by Kaufmann in his own repertoire. However, Kaufmann likes the intermediate check from b4 in the main line, while Sakaev considers it an overfinesse and goes straight for 5...Bd6.
Needless to say, I trust Sakaev much more than Kaufmann and his silicon logic.
Really? It makes sense, but it never happened to me to encounter such an opponent. In my personal experience f4 lines are much commoner.
I know I'm setting myself up for a barrage of criticism here, but 2...Bc5, the Classical Variation, is playable. This is also called the Boi Variation, which prompts Eric Schiller to quip "...it has never reached manhood..." It often transposes into a Vienna or Italian Game. But there are some other interesting lines possible, such as the Evan's Gambit-like 3.b4 and something called the Lewis Gambit: 3.c3 d5!? BTW, it's named for William Lewis, a 19th century British player, not Jerry......
Criticism? of course 2...Bc5 is playable and perfectly good :) maybe a tad less flexible than 2...Nf6 or Nc6, since 2...Bc5 somewhat limits black options. There was a recent SOS article suggesting 3.d4!? as leading at least to equality, but objectively it's not something that should scare black away from 2...Bc5.
Interesting that you should mention this idea, 3.d4!? As black, against 2.Bc4, I've been playing 2...d5!? for a while. In fact, I was playing it for weeks before I checked and found out it's the Khan Gambit. The idea is to restrict white's LSB's power. If 3.exd5 Bd6, developing the B and blocking the pawn. If 3.Bxd5 Nf6 and black should be able to eliminate the bishop or get the pawn back. It's probably unsound, but it works OK for NPs like me (that's "National Patzer", only slightly above your ordinary, run-of-the mill patzer).
can't white just retreat to b3 (i mean 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d5?! 3.Bxd5 Nf6 4.Bb3)? 4...Nxe4 5.Qe2 doesn't look line black is getting his pawn back. It's late evening here, so don't be too harsch if i missed an hanging piece somewhere :P
You didn't miss anything. Nakamura (Clyde, not the other guy) gives 4.Bb3 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nge2 Bb4 7.f3 Be6 8.Ba4 Qd6 9.Nb5 Qe7 10.c3 Bc5 11.d4 O-O-O 12.d5 Kb8, and a couple of variations where black sacs on d5, with advantage. Check his article in chessville.com. Black only gets the pawn back quickly against inferior, befuddled opposition.