The Bowdler 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 ! >:(

Why would you ask me that? I told you I am not interested in discussing it with you.  

If you're that desperate to, pay me, and I will discuss it. Otherwise stop harassing me.  

k

Hi Melvin, No, it is a significant disadvantage to play the 2Bc4 move (a significant swing in the evaluation). I know from experience because I play it against weaker players as I mentioned in my first comment. When my "weaker" opponent responds ideally with e6 and d5, I regret that I played 2Bc4. I agree that the game is not over (Nikki's opponent didn't need to resign), but it is a bad move... not as bad as playing f6 early or the bongcloud, but still not something to be recommended or feared.    

 

I was actually referring to his nephew....Diddly Squat.

Yep...man those were good time. 

Sounds like this young kid i know.  When he was 10 the local master were saying he will be  master by the time he is 13.  So what happened?  he fell in love with openings.  Fell in love with "I'm an attacking player"  So....every time he lost it was the same excuse.  "I forgot my theory" or "I mixed up my theory"  No...you hung a piece.  I think he peaked as as 1800 player. 

I have heard that excuse a few times after an OTB game.  My opponents excuse was they lost because i didn't play theory, or i didn't play book moves.  My response is always the same.  Play the position, not the person, not theory, and not book moves.

I do have to disagree with you on the bowlder attack.  I leased NASA's computers and ran 2.Bc4 for 2.5 years.  2.Bc4 is -.000000000004 pawns, which means that black is winning.

Opening prep at my level ( I peaked as a USCF A player) is a waste of study time.  Even at that level, games are still decided by tactics and mistakes. 

I already talked with them.  One tried to tell me how Loodiquiss i was in hogging them 'puters.  But once i explained to them the importance of what i was doing.  I mean for Crips sake, im trying to prove black is lost on move 2!!!  Then they understood.

Sounds like this older dude I've seen hanging around the internet. When he started his account he came in acting like he knew everything, always preaching about what the good and bad things to do in chess were, he knew all. So what happened? He fell in love with doing endless tactics and looking over his mistakes. So every time he lost it was the same excuse - "It was just a tactical blunder" or "it was a simple mistake, won't happen again". No - you were out of book by move 3 and no idea what you were doing. 

I think he peaked as a USCF Class A player. 

Part of that sounds like me...and part of it doesn't.  So i dont know.

Can you imagine a driving range on Mars! 

How far did that one go Mike?  Oh.....about a mile.

Like i posted before.  Their is a local guy that is a complete engine addict.  Whatever the engine tells him has to be the gospel truth.  If an engine shows white has a .000000001 pawn advantage, then white is winning.  All he does is regurgitate what the engine shows him, with absolutely no understanding of what he is looking at.  And he wonders why he cant advance past the C section. 

But I have the depth set at 4 Quadrillion!  And it sees 657 moves ahead so it must be correct. 

2.Bc4 is blessed bread for sicilian players, if you end up losing I assure you it is not because of your opening skills. You need to pinpoint the major keys/ideas in the opening AND the middlegame/endgame resulting from this line.

I really feel, with all due respect @IMBacon that your argument using your engine junkie friend commits the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes. Obviously studying openings and best replies to common mistakes isn’t winning, but it helps. Any bit of additional knowledge helps. Second, you imply that Engine Junky’s problem was studying openings. Maybe? But perhaps he was just bad at tactics and hit a wall. He used opening theory to try to compensate.

I know that I suffer from severe ADD and calculation for me is hard and visualization impossible without meds. I hang pieces all the time and don’t see combinations unless I’m medicated. The difference between my rating medicated and I medicated is about 300-400 points, and I have a Meds account on the other web site that’s 1900.

I could study tactics all day long but it’s not going to help. I know a ton of theory for someone my rating because I’ve played for a decade, was third board in high school on a good team, so I’ve built up a knowledge base. Sure it doesn’t keep me from hanging pieces, but it does help—a lot. Without putting myself into good positions, I’d be losing to 800 players, and that’s no joke.

I have never said engines are not of value.  IF they are used properly.  And when a 1300 player is talking about how .04 at move 2 is "winning" and seeing 20 moves ahead?  The problem with this is that we are not playing anyone rated 3600, move 2 does not decide anyone's games, and none of us sees 20 moves ahead. 

It doesn’t help against a good player, but against someone of equal rating, a good position out of the opening could be the deciding factor. Remember, engine evaluations always rely on perfect play. While best responses to the Bowdler only give you a marginal advantage in the computer evaluation, in practical terms, black’s moves come easily and white has to struggle to defend. There are lots of positions, and you know this, where the eval doesn’t tell the whole story. I can’t remember the last time I didn’t win against the Bowdler, and it’s because of prep, not superior tactical skill. Would I lose against you if you played the Bowdler? Every time. Would I lose against an 1100? Probably not.

@NikkiLikeChikki do you tend to use different openings in your med vs unmed account? Not relevant to this thread, just curious.

It was not 0.04. And I agree and already mentioned that it does not decide the game. 

I acknowledge and appreciate the comment by DaBaby's Burner. I would be interested in people's thoughts on his suggested queen move. It seemed like a bandage to me and the bishop backpedals twice in the early going if you look at the move sequence he provided.   

@shamus - I do everything the same, except for the hanging pieces and not spotting tactics part. The most dangerous part is not spotting threats because of not seeing the whole board. I’m good at openings and endgames, because those are all about knowledge. Middle games are where I lose.