how to analyze my side of the following openings

QS about how to learn openings playing online

Im playing two games now online and want to use it to learn openings.

The opening I played as white was 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 d6

The opening I played as black was 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5

My problem is when I looked up the opening for white I was given two different names 1 Bishops Opening C23 and 2 Sicillian Defense.

When I looked up my opening as black it was named as C40 Kings Knight Opening.

How do i analyse my side of the opening when they are named from the opponents perspective.

I hope this qs makes sense

I could explain a lot about names, but that wouldn't help you analyse them. To analyse some position, it doesn't matter what it is called.

In the opening you played as black, what was your idea if white took the pawn with 3.Nxe5?

An opening is an opening is an opening. Doesn't matter what side you play, it's still the same position and the same opening.

When you play 1. e4 as White, it's Blacks response that decides. 1. e4 is not an opening in itself; but 1. e4 c5 is a Sicilian, just like 1. e4 e6 is a French.

Response would be Nh6

Thanks for the replies. There are a few opening websites but which one is best if you want to research different lines after making a book opening

Hi @analyze I'd concentrate on general opening priniciples before getting too deep into book openings try http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman53.pdf  . 

The reason why you are getting confusion and names from the opponent's perspective is that both your openings are horrible and non-existent in opening manuals because they are so bad.

The "Bishop's Opening" is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4, the Sicilian is 1.e4 c5.  After 1.e4 c5, the move 2.Bc4 is just horrible, and a waste of time for White.  The reason why 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 is fine, but not 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 is that 2.Bc4 has no use when Black can just bluntly play e6, plugging up the diagonal.  After 1.e4 e5, 2.Bc4 is not best, but it's ok because the pawn can't move backwards, and so White is going for an early attack against f7.

Instead, after 1.e4 c5, you should be looking at either 2.Nf3 (to promote a d4 push), 2.Nc3, 2.c3 (again to get in d4), or 2.d4 (a gambit), following it up with 3.c3 and 4.Nxc3.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, 2...Bc5 is completely useless.  You need to protect your pawn, or else attack White's pawn in return.  2...Nc6 and 2...d6 guard the pawn, 2...Nf6 (known as the Petroff, or Russian Defense) attacks White's e-pawn.  After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, Black can then play 3...Bc5, or after 3.Bb5, Black can play 3...Bc5 (known as the Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez).

But you definitely want to make these 2 games the last 2 you ever play with 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 as White and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5, as otherwise you will utterly fail.  Both lines suck!

Although 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 clearly isn't the best move, I think calling it horrible is a bit too much. It develops a piece, prepares castling, doesn't lose material, has been played by masters.

Let's not propagate the myth that "not the theoretically optimal move" is equal to "horrible! there must be a refutation!".

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 is very bad if the idea is to follow up 3.Nxe5 with 3...Nh6?, and not some attempt to regain the pawn (perhaps 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6, but I'm typing blindfolded so I'm probably missing something). Then it's probably worse than 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4, but let's use horrible for outright blunders.

Edit: I missed that there's a pawn on e4, so white's knight isn't pinned...

The 2..Bc5 variation is called the buch gass gambit or something like that.

I never played it but i remember at one point a strong player here recommended it to a beginner as a way to practice their tactics.

After 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 I believe white has nothing better than to give back the pawn? but still, white holds a good advantage.
There are probably a few traps associated with it.

I my world (2113 Over the board rating), "Horrible" and "Blunder" are not synonomous.  1.e4 h6 2.d4 g5 3.Nc3 f6.  Black's first move is a horrible move.  Black's 3rd move is a blunder.  It doesn't take a blunder to be a horrible move.

Back in my days of playing the French, I had some low-rated fool play 1.e4 e6 2.Bc4, and again, what an utter waste of time with the Bishop.  2...d5 and now White must move it again.

After 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4, Black should play 2...e6, and achieving an equal position or better will be of absolutely no sweat to Black.  White should never be satisfied with utter equality out of the opening.

Thanks lads for taking the time to type your replies.

The two openings I posted above are not my usual openings. I am trying to learn new openings by playing online as recommended by Aww Rats from the Aww Rats group.

In live chess Im using 1 e4 2 Nf3 3 Bc4 for white at the moment. I have used the Ruy Lopez before but Im trying to see what its like playing 3 Bc4 . I thought it might save time cos in the lopez im nearly always forced to move the bishop back anyway.

For black i play somehing after 1e5

Sorry not putting this all in one post but im using my phone and the cursor keeps jumping erratically.

For black i play something off 1e5 if i can. It depends on opponents move. I have tried Sicillian and its good but u have to be very exact and i find my opponents moves take me out of book easily and then im lost.

I tend to wing it playing black. I try to get quick counters to disrupt my opponents build up but i dont follow formal openings.

The 2 and 4 knights are others ive tried. I tried the stonewall also when starting out for safety but it was hard to remember in a live game.

Thrillerfan

I dont see how 2Bc5 for black is useless. It is a potential threat if combined with Qf6 later in the game

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4? allows Black to play 2...e6, threatening d5 either immediately or later. 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 is much more playable because Black does not have an easy way to get d5 in.

When you are looking at ANY chess game, you must consider your opponent's moves. This is why 1.e4 c5 is a much different opening than 1.e4 e5.

i once read somewhere that 2bc4 is bad because black gets a tempo on the bishop.

thats weird, you know i always played some patzer variation of the archangelsk and thought it was bad for a similar reason, but strangely enough its probably a correct way of playing.

Forgot to ask what openings would you recommend for White and Black

I normally open every game for white with E4. Ive played close to 500 games with e4 on all sites so I dont mind trying others at this stage. Ive mainly been concentrating on Tactics up to now but id like to learn some ore openings by playing them either online or live.

Thanks again for your help. Its not easy typing up chess notation and trying to see moves blindfold.

2...Bc5 is useless in that it does nothing to hold Black's center, nor attack White's.  I take on e5.  Also, what good is Qf6 going to do you?  If I haven't moved the Knight back to f3 already, it's going back there, so Qf6 does what?  Oh, I hear ya, it exposes your Queen to attack, and with my Knight on f3, I'm sure you'll love it when I play Bg5.

I repeat, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 is "utter crap!"

There are lines in the open games where Black does play ...Bc5, but NOT HERE on move 2.  "Bc5" isn't utter crap, but "2...Bc5" is!

Lines where Black does play an eventual Bc5 in the open games include:

Guioco Piano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5)
Classical Ruy (Same as GP, except 3.Bb5 by White)
Moller (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Bc5) 

Pfren, when did he make GM?

I used to play him on ICC years ago! We had some excellent games there, but in blitz he tended to play 1.c4 almost exclusively against me. I didn't know he made GM tho.

We played over 50 blitz and bullet games against each other, but he almost never played 1.e4 against me. And yes, he won a clear majority of the games (he scored around 60-65%), but he almost never beat me out of the opening. Most of our games were long positional scraps.