Why do you play 2. Bc4 against the Sicilian?

For those of you who play 2. Bc4 against the Sicilian  - why do you do that?

(I am referring specifically to 1. e4 c5 2. Bc4?!).

All opening courses and books say that this is a bad move and that lower rated player play it because they confuse Sicilian with the Italian. But I don't buy it. I know you are not that stupid to not be able to recognise the difference between 1...e5 and 1...c5. So why do you play this inferior move? Do you try to avoid theory? Or perhaps it is trolling - trying to make a statement "I know this move is bad, but I will beat you anyway".

A lot of lower rated players just play the first developing move that comes to their mind. And many likes to develop their Bishops first so they in the next move can play d3 (they probably judge d4 as risky without any further thought) and develop Bc1. They do not consider the difference between e5 and c5, not because they don't se it, but because they don't understand the importance of the difference.

@1

"this is a bad move" ++ No, it is not bad at all.
"why do you play this inferior move?" ++ No, it is not inferior.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2211621

@4

"White gives up all opening advantage and Black is equal on move 2."
++ That is also the case after 2 Nf3, 2 c3, 2 Nc3, 2 f4.

"2. Nf3, 2. Nc3 even 2. c3 are better"
++ How do you know? 2 Bc4 develops a piece and controls the center, cannot be bad.
If gave a classical game of two 2600+ grandmasters where white played it and won.

Because they are chess ignorant!

How does he know?  Clearly he understands chess more than you do!  Bc4 is played against 1...e5 because the move 1...e5 weakens the a2-g8 diagonal.  Every time you move a pawn 2 squares, you weaken 2 diagonals, namely the 2 that cross the square your pawn leapt.  So 1.d4 weakens the f1-a6 and b1-h7 diagonals for White.

When Black can still play ...e6, committing early to c4 for the Bishop is not good at all!

I have even occasionally gotten 1.e4 e6 2.Bc4? (Yes, bad, not even dubious) as Black.  After 2...d5, Black is already better!

Nice job cherry-picking one game that White won.  Does not make it good.

You going to go find us a game that White wins after 1.e4 e6 2.Bc4? d5 and then maybe one White wins after 1.g4 d5 2.f3?

@7
"Clearly he understands chess more than you do! "
++ So the 1450 rated player understands chess more than the 2682 rated grandmaster...

Gents, please - arguing is pointless. 

Thanks for your opinion @tygxc - at least I have one opinion now of somebody who honestly believes 2. Bc4 is a good move. Fair enough. 

Anyone else would like to give his or her reasons? Thanks.

@10
There are many more (grand)masters who played 2 Bc4 occasionally or systematically.
One of the finer points is, that it leads to the old Nimzovich Indian Defence reversed.
1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3 Nf6 5 Nf3 d5 6 Bb5
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 Nc6 5 Nf3 d6 6 Be2 e5.
White loses a tempo: Bc4-b5 in 2 moves instead of ...Bb4 in 1 move,
but wins a tempo: e4 in 1 move instead of ...e6 and ...e5 in 2 moves. 

Isn’t that the Bowdler Attack?

@12

Yes, that is the Bowdler attack.
It was also the preferred variation of world champion Adolf Anderssen
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001357

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1477244

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001388 

Thank-you.

I saw it more frequently in the 800-1200 bracket, odd times at 1200-1500 tournaments and haven’t once at the 1500-1800 bracket.

There are more testing options that white has.

I prefer 2.Nc6 anticipating queen to f3 where I can jump in with a fork or 3.e6 or another knight jump to hunt down the bishop.

If my opponent isn’t a dork, simply e6, a6 and expand with b5 kicking the bishop with tempo and fianchetto my Katalimov Bishop, d5 is in the cards as well and the game is equalized. Even an earlier d5 works.

It causes black to go crazy.

To wit, you have someone who plays b4 as white otb throwing shade?

It goes back to 4 move checkmate. They played e6 to be defense.

How much you want to bet black will not lose in 4 moves with e6?

Thats the French.

But white is still coming after black? Sound the nuclear alarm.

You are not a 2682 grandmaster, and you have not cited any 2682 Grandmaster in your "quotes", and just because a single game was played between 2600s does not constitute valid evidence of what you say.  A 2682 is not a "perfect" chess player!  If he was, he'd be beating Magnus Carlsen as Carlsen has lost games and he's over 2800!

You are precisely the type of person that hears or sees something at the 10,000 foot level and thinks it's gospel.  Learn how to interpret facts and dig deeper than what little you see at the surface.  You won't sound like a fool that way!

I gave mine in post 7.  It is about understanding weakened diagonals and that is why Bc4 is no good.

@17

"just because a single game" ++ I have shown several games, one by Van Foreest, several by Anderssen. There are many more, e.g. by Yge Visser.  

"Learn how to interpret facts and dig deeper than what little you see at the surface."
++ That applies to you. I have shown the Bowdler attack transposes to a Nimzovich Indian Defence Reversed with an extra tempo.

@14

"I prefer 2.Nc6 anticipating queen to f3"
++ 2 Bc4 is not bad, but 3 Qf3 makes no sense. 2 Bc4 is a logical developing move, that prepares O-O. 3 Qf3 commits the queen too soon and takes the natural square of Ng1.
You could say than 2 Bc4 transgresses the opening principle of knights before bishops, but so does 2 Bf4 in the London System.

Im 1800 and a lot of people it around there play it just to throw people out of theory, just because it is "bad" doesn't mean black automaticly wins. Black has to change his opening and adapt to get the advantage, for an exampel aganist Bc4 blacks ideas mostly are pushing the pawn to d5.