The Bowdler 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 ! >:(
Sort:
NikkiLikeChikki
Jun 9, 2021
0
#101
But honestly, I just like chess. I’m bad at it, but I don’t care. I play for fun and have no illusions about being good. Chasing ratings is a hamster wheel. If you’re 800 you’re sad that you’re not 1000. If you’re 1800 you’re sad that you’re not 2000. If you’re the second best player in the world, you’re sad that you’re not the world champion. I just play unrated games and enjoy myself.
I think I can understand your frustration with 2. Bc4.....I have the same issue with the exchange french, which I will admit I dont do well against. Now Fishbein is coming out with a book on the exchange french. Yikes!
Never found the dreaded London system boring with white, although I am looking for a line to play against it.
To the OP: Just curious...what is your solution to the problem? Change openings? Those anti Sicilians will always be there. Personally, i always play the closed variation
@NikkiLikeChikki thanks for sharing. Couldn't agree more about ratings though. Whenever you reach a new level, you realize just how little you knew previously. It is always interesting to see super GMs handle a 2500 in the same way an IM handles a club player.
So, why are we all up in arms about this, exactly? Don't you get a tempo for e6+d5 which is basically free equality and a good game for black?
Simon_ESIEE wrote:
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.
....the OP is 1200 give him a break. Hes going to be wrong on everything.
If he thinks Bc4 meets e6 and the game is over...and knows that Fischer played Bc4 and got met by e6...its hopeless.
nighteyes1234 wrote:
Simon_ESIEE wrote:
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.
....the OP is 1200 give him a break. Hes going to be wrong on everything.
If he thinks Bc4 meets e6 and the game is over...and knows that Fischer played Bc4 and got met by e6...its hopeless.
Fischer never played the Bowdler idiot.
IMBacon wrote:
What is the Bowdler Idiot?
Who is the Bowdler Idiot?
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Fischer never played the Bowdler idiot.
Read again. The op is excited about e6 against Bc4. 2 Bc4 e6!!!boom. Case closed.
nighteyes1234 wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Fischer never played the Bowdler idiot.
Read again. The op is excited about e6 against Bc4. 2 Bc4 e6!!!boom. Case closed.
The OP didn't say anything like that, he specified the Bowdler. The Sozin Attack played by Fischer and the like is a super grandmaster world title calibre opening (slightly out of favour among the elite these days but still very dangerous).
The Bowdler on the other hand is the lamest, backyard, rubbishy opening and the strongest mark of a patzer who has no idea about openings. Bit of a difference.
While there are openings that are objectively worse than the Bowdler like the Latvian gambit or the sicilian wing gambit or the like, those openings have a point and can be dangerous in the right hands against the right type of player. The Bowdler has no point. That's why you'll often find strong players playing those other openings, but not the Bowdler, which doesn't even deserve a name.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
The Bowdler on the other hand is the lamest, backyard, rubbishy opening and the strongest mark of a patzer who has no idea about openings. Bit of a difference.
While there are openings that are objectively worse than the Bowdler like the Latvian gambit or the sicilian wing gambit or the like, those openings have a point and can be dangerous in the right hands against the right type of player. The Bowdler has no point. That's why you'll often find strong players playing those other openings, but not the Bowdler, which doesn't even deserve a name.
In other words you have no idea about anything.
"We think of the hundreds of books on Sicilian opening variations and then tend to decide that 2. Bc4 has some specific flaw. Perhaps the threat of ...e7-e6 and ...d7-d5, forcing White to move his Bishop and thereby to lose a tempo, is the reason we rarely see 2. Bc4 played. In truth, however, opening moves are based on definite ideas, which are usually there even if not often obvious. In the case of 2. Bc4 in the Sicilian, there is no specific flaw, no killer refutation; this early Bishop move simply doesn't conform to the principles of sound opening play"- GM Lev Alburt and Larry Parr, p. 119 - 'Secrets of the Russian Chess masters' vol. 2 , 1997."
- Thats from Bowlder attack ...easy google search.
- Leela +.02 Eman +.01....obviously you are engine stupid...because any engine works to show its not "rubbish".
^ How anyone can be as dumb as what you just posted and yet have a decent blitz rating, is beyond my comprehension.
Dude I first read that about ten years ago it's been often quoted everywhere, including in various books. You have clearly no understanding of what they are saying. You don't have a MONKIES what you're talking about, what I'm talking about, what they're talking about that you just quoted, what the many good players in this thread, or at least people who have a clue are talking about, or what the engine calculation means. Google search, what the hell are you talking about.
You don't have a MONKIES. I can promise you that.
When it comes to talking about chess openings you're a joke.
It's genuinely painful to read something like that.
If seeing 2.Bc4 makes you want to vomit, perhaps you are just too mentally weak to play chess at all
Jun 16, 2021
0
#117
Laskersnephew wrote:
If seeing 2.Bc4 makes you want to vomit, perhaps you are just too mentally weak to play chess at all
And I would like to add that if you think you are so good at chess that move #2 matters? I would get a cat scan.
