Name of Opening?

1. e4 2. Bc4 3. d3 4. Bf4

I am wondering what opening this is or a slight variation of it would be called. (shuffling pawns/bishops a little)  This is my standard and i was curious as to its name, thanks in advance.

EDIT: also, the steps listed were obviously from only whites perspective, as black used a slight varient the steps would be changed to fit the shift from a left diagonal to a right diagonal.

I don't see how that position could be reached without a player hanging a piece. You're forgetting to list the opponent's moves...

I did not wish to create a hypothetical game of the opponents I was merely showing what the opener looks like on the fourth turn and also whether you favor the queen's or king's diagonal.  I dont want to take the time to set up a theoretical game right now because its three thirty and I am sleepy but I might tomorrow.  Think of this less like a game and more of a single sided set of moves to use as a basic template for a flexible opening set.

A major problem with this system is it doesn't work if your opponent plays e5 or d5...

If black plays e5 then white plays Be3. if black plays d5 then white plays Bc5 or Be2 then when black either brings out his bishop or moves up a pawn you play d4 on your next move opening your second bishop.

also, while i do greatly appreciate analytical feedback i was mostly looking for a name of it if it has one.

It doesn't, because it would depend on your opponents moves. Very few systems have names.

okay thank you. i was just wondering what to call this if i referred it to someone, as in a generic term for this type of strategy. 

There is no name for this opening simply because it doesnt exist. You cannot give only white moves with no black responses and ask for a name to the opening....

I am aware that what i posted was not a legitimate game and thus cannot be a complete opener but what i am wondering is what i should call the opening set used on white.  Would i just list the moves used by white or would i always have to give a potential black response? 

Of course you have to give a black response, as each one leads to a completely different opening! It's no good calling this the Z Opening without black moves, as depending on what they play the game will be completely different- for example, a French Defence, a Caro-Kann... it just wouldn't work.

:/ what i am looking for should probably not be classified as an opener but as more of an opening strategy then?

Well, I guess so. But you shouldn't really have a set strategy like that. You need to react to your opponents moves.

I dont use a 'set' strategy this is just my favorite opener to use, bringing bishops out early and then supporting them with knights, saving rooks for the endgame.

If you wanted to call it something, you would have to make the name up.

 Hi Durtan,

Your basic idea (strategy) is not a bad one. That is, as you say, play e4 early on, bring out your minor pieces, and then use your rooks later (in the middlegame or endgame). However, it really doesn't warrant a name. It's a very crude idea and many many openings are based on opening principles rather similar to yours.

If you wanted to name your approach you could say it is a natural opening development style - there are other (less natural) opening systems that rely upon advancing, for example, the a pawn and playing on the flanks.

However, people are right when they say an opening is about the relationship between two people's moves. So, for example, after you play 1. e4 your opponent may play e5 (which you might classify as a king's pawn opening), or c5 (which is sicillian), or e6 (which is the french defence). Let's imagine that black plays c5. So the first two moves are 1. e4 c5 and this is the sicillian opening. Now, you may have a choice of moves now. You may like 2. Nc3 (which is called the closed Sicillian) or 2. c3 (which is the Alapin variation of the Sicillian) or  2. d4 (which leads to the exchange variation of the Sicilian). Whichever move you choose, black then has choices and each of his choices also affects the opening and leads to a differently named variation.

Using your principles you would probably respond to 1. ... c5 with 2. Bc4 and this would lead to the Bowlder Attack variation of the Sicillian. Here's how the first four moves may go. It's a perfectly reasonable way to start a game for white.

However, what if White had not played 1. ... c5? What if they played 1. e5? Well, here's how the game would go.

Now, we're playing the Berlin Defence variation of the Bishop's opening.

Do you see the point I am making. An opening is defined by a set of moves by both black and white.

The ideas you have come up with are not crazy ideas. They are reasonable principles to help you approach the opening. Obviously you have to modify your ideas a little depending upon what black plays and as the game develops.

However, what your saying just isn't specific (sophisticated) enough to warrant any sort of name. But it is a reasonable way to approach the opening - if you wish to refer the approach to anyone I believe it would not be unreasonable to say it is natural and classical (as opposed to, for example, modern or neo-modern).

Hope this helps.

1.e4 d5 2.Bc4 dc 3.d3 e5 4.Bf4 ef would be a Scandinavian Defence, sometimes also known as the Centre-Counter defence.

this has no name because it dont exist... too many hanging pieces and a recipe for diaster! this opening sucked and if u like it, well ur a total noob

 I think you're saying the same thing as me but in a slightly different way :)

haha nice.  Btw, the sicilian given is a good example of why it is important to include your opponents moves and react to them in the opening.  It's also a good example of 'knights before bishops'.  While bringing the bishop out first can be perfectly ok (it is fine after 1...e5), after 1...c5 there is a big difference in that the black e-pawn isnt committed yet.  Against this move it is actually incorrect to bring the bishop out first because rather than 2...d6 black will likely play 2...e6 possibly preparing ...d5 gaining time on the bishop and attacking the centre, or potentially leaving the bishop biting on granite on e6.  It is not yet clear where this bishop wants to go, so best to do something else and decide what to do with the bishop later, e.g 2.Nf3. 

Also, regarding words to describe that opening style, it is classical as it is playing for the centre occupying it and developing pieces towards it, and it is fairly quiet usually with .d3.  Regarding the bishops, there is no word for this, but there is a general opening principle of 'knights before bishops' as it is usually correct to develop knights first.  It is certainly very unlikely you should have both bishops developed like that with neither knight developed.