Why do you play 2. Bc4 against the Sicilian?

@41

"other ways of handling the Sicilian as White should be preferable to 2. Bc4. "
++ What ways? Like this?
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164267 

@USS_Defiant - I don't play the Bowdler 2.Bc4, nevertheless I can speak to your wider question. I used to play the Open Sicilian and since I have a good memory I achieved very favorable positions out of the opening. But I had poor results overall. I found my opponents (average 2000 or better), despite the theoretical disadvantages, knew exactly how to play the resulting middlegames. And uniquely the (Open) Sicilian is the black defense which still retains "play" for black no matter how lost black's position is! So they would just bash out quick moves in a lost position, and I would get into time pressure trying to press my advantage. In the Open Sicilian this often requires a sacrifice, and as Korchnoi said "no guessing". Later one slip by me and black's "play" would become serious. No fun.... In fact my results were so poor, I realized if I drew every game with white against the Sicilian then my rating would go up. Gah! So I completely gave up on the Open Sicilian, did a deep study of the Closed Sicilian, and sure enough started getting excellent results.

Long story short, theoretical result of the opening is *not* the same as the result of the game.

Postscript: I remember an Open Sicilian against GM Utut Adianto in a New York Open where I played both of the typical sacrifices Nc3-d5 and Nd4-f5. He ignored both sacrifices and retreated his pieces. I had a sure advantage but started running out of time (same sad song). He gradually equalized and then outplayed me routinely in my time pressure. Not fun....

Agreed.

The Open Sicilian is almost certainly White's "best" try. Though it's also incredibly theoretical.

I don't always play 1.e4, though if I were to play against the Sicilian in a tournament, I would definitely choose to prep a lesser-known sideline (such as the Bowdler). Because this would allow me to steer the game more toward my prep, and further away from black's general prep.

Top players speak of this often: choosing less ideal opening variations, not necessarily because they are best, but because they can allow the game to move toward something more familiar to them, and less familiar to their opponent.

This can often lead to better winning percentages, even if the opening wasn't ideal.

As Tal famously said: "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one."

Well, if he would do a better job of explaining it, his point would be valid.

If you are below 2600 (so yes, this includes people like myself that continue to fluctuate between 1950 and 2150 USCF), there is absolutely no use in memorizing openings.  What good does it do you to memorize 30 moves of Najdorf Sicilian?  Absolutely ZERO!  ZILCH!  BOPKIS!  Why?  Because nobody at your level is going to play 30 moves of Najdorf theory.  You are completely wasting your time if you memorize that garbage.

The real question is, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND SAID 30 MOVES?  Now that is a different story all together!

Nobody should be saying that you have no business studying the Najdorf.  But memorizing reams and reams of lines is totally useless.

I do not play the Najdorf, and so it would be bad for me to use that as an example.  But let's take the Advance French.  If all I could tell you is that the main line these days of the Advance French is 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 c4 7.Nbd2 Na5 and then White has options, that wouldn't be very useful.  What if White plays something different?  Do you understand WHY Black plays the moves he plays?  Why not 7...Nge7, for example?  Why should White not play 5.f4?

I once, over the board, faced 5.Ne2 (instead of 5.Nf3) against a 2100 player.  If all I did was memorize lines of the Advance French, I'd be lost as to what to do next.  But Ne2 comes with a big problem.  Sure it covers d4, but it fails to give ample protection to e5, and if White ever plays f4, he is going to have problems castling.  Not because castling will be illegal.  Not like f1 or g1 will be directly attacked.  But with no pawn on f2, and the Black Queen on b6, and a trade of pawns on d4, White is going to have problems with his e5-pawn tactically due to the pin of the d4-pawn.  Undermining moves like ...g5 at the right time could come into the picture.  If White plays Kh1, to het out of the pin, it can be an issue of time, spending extra king moves to get out of dodge, and in the meantime, Black is getting in developing moves like Bd7 and Rc8 or b6 and Ba6, depending on the circumstances.

You need to know typical middlegame ideas, tactical and positional nuances, typical plans of attack or defense, typical weaknesses, including acknowledging your own, like in the French, the e6-pawn is often weak in many lines.

It is not about memorizing 30 moves of Najdorf vs 30 moves of French, but rather, the middlegame ideas of those two openings are like night and day.  You need to understand the ones that apply to the opening you are playing.  So when I study the French Defense, I don't just try to cram a bunch of lines into a storage bank in my brain, I make sure I understand everything that is going on.

At my level of understanding of the French Defense, it is no longer needing to know basic ideas of Black's play.  I have known that for decades now.  Now, it is more about analyzing why Bxh6 ideas in the Advance French are suddenly a problem for Black.  What new ideas has White cooked up, because normally, you'd say that despite the doubled h-pawns, Black gets an open g-file to attack the King, easy access to attacking e5, like Bg7 and f6.  So jwhat was found for White suddenly that makes 8.Bxh6 Qxb2 better for White than what was once thought.  This is what people mean when they say that learning an opening is not just about knowing the minimum number of lines to get by, or memorization, but rather, keeping up with the theory and the ideas.  Openings change.  The French Advance has changed a lot since 2000, especially in 2007 and again in the late 2010's.  It is a bigger headache for Black now than the Tarrasch is.  3.Nc3 is still best, but 3.e5 is not as easy as people claim to defend.

I have been a dedicated French player for over a quarter of a century.  I have flipped back and forth between a good half a dozen defenses to 1.d4.  The level of my play and results in my over the board games as Black against e4 vs against d4 definitely shows.  I still to this day struggle to defend against 1.d4, but yet have beaten MANY players more than 200 higher than me with the Black pieces against 1.e4.  As you get higher, it is actually harder to win with Black.  Down at like, 1500, color is irrelevant!

Why should you be concerned with it? 

cuz it wont help. face it ur a 1700- grandpatzer...AT BEST

it ok to be a amateur. ur a star...and u shine...ur a champion...thats whatchu do......everyday   L♥

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We_pDiJFEYg

3 Qe2....I like g6.

Sorry, pal, but you do not understand it either. I am not asking this question to become a better player, to optimise my training or results. I want to understand openings and why people play in a certain way. 

So all of you - please spare me the advice why it makes no sense on my level to study openings or suggestions that on my level it does not really matter what you play as long as you do not blunder.  Thank you.

And by the way - I disagree with the latter opinion. I used to play the Berlin defense. And I was never able to win even against weaker players. So your opening choices do matter, even at the lower level.

Inferior - worse than alternatives. And by worse I mean yielding worse results (check the database of games) or being evaluated as worse by the engine - and no, I am not talking about +0.1 differences. 

What I don't like about your question though is how it goes into the realms of "philosophy". Philosophers are like this. I say "I am sitting on the chair". And they would go: "what does it mean 'to sit'?", "define chair" and so on.

@53

"by worse I mean yielding worse results (check the database of games)"
++ Results of a database say nothing about the opening, but about those who play it.
Result correlates with rating difference, not with ECO code.

"or being evaluated as worse by the engine" ++ 2 Bc4: 0.0 2 Nf3: 0.0, hence not worse.

a6 or Nc6 I'd suggest

I don't want to be disrespectful, but could you please read carefully what I have written?

0.0 is inferior if you have another line that gives you +0.5. 

@57

0.0 is not inferior if the other line gives 0.0 just the same

Any database will do - chess.com, chessbase, lichess etc. Pick your favourite.

The stats are not favourable for White on any rating range.

I agree that the importance of opening quality increases with rating range and that at lower levels you can win with virtually any opening. But that is NOT the point! My point was (let me stress it again, because it gets lost over and over again):

If multiple better variations against the Sicilian exist (and they do!), and - barring honest ignorance (somebody literally not being aware of it) - if you know 2. Bc4 is worse (ok, maybe only slightly, but still worse), why do you still choose it as your weapon of choice??

I know for example the Exchange Slav is not bad for White, but it gives Black easy equality, so I try to learn a bit about better ways of handling the Slav. Maybe I won't go for the Botvinnik, because it is too theory heavy for me, but there are so many other ways of playing the opening that allow White to retain a small advantage. Not much, of course a draw with perfect play, but still. As Petrosian said - it is much easier to play for the win from a better position. 

Coming back to the 2. Bc4 Sicilian - surely those who play it and are not complete novice are aware that this is not the best line, not even close. 2. Nf3, 2. Nc3 even 2. c3 are all better. So why on earth do they play it?? 

I personally feel that often it is a way of trolling the opponent. If I am wrong, please tell me.

@61

"If multiple better variations against the Sicilian exist (and they do!)" ++ No, they do not.

"2. Nf3, 2. Nc3 even 2. c3 are all better" ++ No, not really.

"why on earth do they play it?? " ++ Because it gives a better practical chance of winning.

"If I am wrong, please tell me." ++ Yes, you are wrong.

2. Nf3, 2. Nc3 or 2. c3 are not better? You are making a very bold claim here. I think you owe us some proof. So far you are giving only your opinions without any substance. And in doing so you are claiming top players and engines are all wrong.

The same goes from your comment "yes, you are wrong". Do you think you are funny with a short reply? Well, this reply has no substance in it. I accept that I might be wrong, but I think you need to back up your claim with some reasoning. Thanks.

I believe that there something like the truth. In chess too. Can a beginner lose a game even when starting on odds say, having an extra queen? Of course! Does it mean that playing with an extra queen is not objectively better? No, it does not. 

The argument that an opening is not bad because the game between two beginners will not be decided by the outcome of the opening is faulty. It is a valid point, but it says nothing about the objective value of the position, of the game of chess. 

2. Bc4 is worse than some other moves against the Sicilian, PERIOD. And the fact that a beginer will mess things up and throw away any opening advantage does not change that assessment.

Two-year-olds do this as well.

There are 2 different things - choosing an opening based on a minuscule difference in engine evaluation is silly, but there are some objective truths we use to guide us, aren't there? We do not start the game of chess by playing 1. f3, because this move is objectively bad. 

2. Bc4 against the Sicilian is not bad because of the engine evaluation. Even here in this thread people explained how the bishop gets blunted by e7-e6 and how Black easily achieves d7-d5 - a move that is often a distant dream in many lines of the Sicilian. So it is not just the engine score. There are valid chess principles and ideas here. And they all scream "don't play 2. Bc4!". Yet people do.

@66

"2. Bc4 is worse than some other moves against the Sicilian, PERIOD."
++ That is false, PERIOD.
Look yourself at any engine: everything gives 0.0 if you calculate long enough.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 has a better reputation than 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 in the same sense that 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 has a better reputation than 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bf4. It is all playable and objectively neither inferior nor superior.

@69

"We do not start the game of chess by playing 1. f3, because this move is objectively bad."
++ But 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 is not objectively bad. GM Van Foreest played 2 Bc4 against GM Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa because he thought that gave him the best practical chance, and he was right: he won. If he had chosen 2 Nf3, then it may have been a draw or even a loss.

"the bishop gets blunted by e7-e6 and how Black easily achieves d7-d5"
++ That transposes to a Nimzovich Indian Defence reversed with an extra tempo.

"There are valid chess principles and ideas here."
++ The only objection is that Bc4 develops a bishop before the knight, just like 1 d4 d5/Nf6 2 Bf4 violates that same principle, but gets played at top level nevertheless.

"And they all scream don't play 2. Bc4!" ++ Only you do.

"Yet people do."
++ These people know that it gives good practical chances, e.g. GM Van Foreest.

I gave it a go against the 2200 "Noam" bot here on chess.com (one of my favorite bot sparring partners):

My conclusion: 2. Bc4 is certainly playable.

Back when I first began learning chess, one of the first lessons that I was taught: the main point of the opening phase is to reach a playable middle-game. Not "perfect" or "engine-accurate" or "theoretically-approved", but: ... playable.

It's true that 2. Bc4 is a less principled, and less forcing try against the Sicilian. But it's still a viable approach - especially in capable hands.

And black is almost certainly going to be less prepared against it - which means white will battle against less engine prep from black, and that the onus is put on black, earlier on, to use his own brain to play ...