The Bc4 Sicilian is pretty toothless and (at least in terms of statistics) pretty well refuted, so long as black has retained the option of playing d5 in one go.
That's why at higher levels, you'll usually only see Bc4 after 2.d6. (At which point it can be played very much in the style of a Pianissimo.)
I think over on chesspub, given the line you've mentioned, 3...e6 4.0-0 d5 is considered (at least) an immediate equalizer.
I think BopGun is right. Both 2 Bc4 and 3 Bc4 are attempts to avoid usual Sicilian lines. It doesn't make any of the books on standard replies because at higher levels the ... e6, ... d5 idea creates development problems for white-- and the whole idea for white is to make problems for black, right?
A slightly tricky line is 1 e4 c6 2 Bc4 e6 3 Qe2, because then d5 is unplayable. But 3 ... Nc6 4 Nf3 Ne7 makes ...d5 possible again, and white's bishop is uncomfortable once more. (1e4 c6 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 e6 4 Qe2 Ne7 transposes.)
I meet c4 a lot in live games, at least in bullet chess. In fact, I meet it almost as much as "open" lines (ie 2 Nf3) by people hoping to get me out of book. But if you remember that ... e6 followed by ...d5 idea, you'll learn to like playing against Bc4!
Hi,
I've had a couple of games recently that began 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4. This third move isn't in my copies of MCO or FCO, and the named variations stop here on chess.com at that move.
I have one game that transposed into this position: 1. e4 c5 2. Bc4, and then the knights came out. I guess this is the Bowlder variation of the Sicilian. But I'm interested in Bc4 coming as the third move.
Any thoughts on the value of this third move? I won the game that transposed into this position, and I lost both games where Bc4 was the third move (playing black in all three). Not sure if that means much, as inconsistency is one of my biggest weaknesses at this point.
Thanks,
Rich