Because they don't know the theory, and are just playing for either the Italian or Scholar's mate as all beginners do. At higher levels it's very rare and for good reason. Bc4 is not a blunder by any means but after 2...e6 black has at the least equalized, with white's bishop doing more harm than good on c4 and black possibly playing d5 soon gaining tempo
Why does everyone play the Bowdler Attack?
Sort:
Laskersnephew wrote:
The most obvious problem with 2,Bc4 is that Black can play e6, which blunts the bishop's diagonal, and follow it up with an early d5, which hit's the bishop and helps dissolve White's center. All this is supposed to give Black fairly easy equality. Of course equality doesn't mean a draw! There's plenty of material left and plenty of scope for each side to outplay the other, If Carlsen were to play a simul against 20 of us, and he played the Bowdler Attack in every game, he would still score between 95 and 100%
That black has such a simple way to take the teeth out of the Bowdler Attack means that white has effectively lost the early advantage of the first move. That won't mean much in a mismatch like Carlsen vs. a group of amateurs because he will routinely outplay them in the rest of the game, but in a more evenly matched game between players of similar strength, it could make a difference because white is not getting any advantage out of the early opening.
Yigor wrote:
Bowlder attack is quite good and 3...d5 is not a problem for white.
um no, just no. 3...d5 allows black to gain precious time.
Mar 27, 2019
0
#26
SpiderUnicorn wrote:
i hate the bowdler
it ruins all my preparations for the Sicilian
This is ironic, you should be happy that people didn't have a chance to find flaws in your preparations.
Have you noticed that the OP is not among us anymore? I guess he couldn't put up with all your wisdom, guys.
This is my last match, opened with Bowdler Attack.
To me the Bowdler Attack is inferior because it basically invites black to play an early d5 or b5 and kick the bishop. I normally play Najdorfs or Dragons but if white plays 2. Bc4 I switch into a good version of the Taimanov by playing 2 ... e6 and with d5 or b5 to follow shortly. The Taimanov is a fine variation of the Sicilian but when white plays the Bowdler you get the Taimanov with an extra tempo for black.
Funny thing about the bowlder attack, it's designed to prevent you from casteling. Like alot of chess openings. The only problem I find with it, is that it also puts a design into the weakness of casteling yourself, which isn't a bad thing, because often times, your king may be safer in the center.
Control the center, and your end game, and you'll be fine.
@Cowboy1111 I don't find any weakness, except that if Black attacks the bishop (for example by Cc6 then Ce5) castling is delayed. @Lateriflora if you play 2... e6 I can replay with 3.e5 and you can't move d5 or b5 like in my example (see the match)
@Cowboy1111, I don't agree. Sometimes I have fun in going round enemies who point the center
They don't!
Bc4 early does provoke black to play e6 and leave his d6 setups behind. I think it may be a little bit more clever to start with 2 nf3 since this is part of white's "scheme" with bc4 anyway and it waits for black to maybe play d6, and then bc4 will have a bit more point because now ..d5 costs a move more. I have played against it several times and the structure I usually get is some kind of Exchange French with the pawn on d3. I found Rasik plays this kind of Nf3 and bc4 line some time ago. He lost to it and then started using the scheme. It sort of resembles the Italian or the closed spanish setups with c3 d3, and the knight maneuver nb1-d2-f1 and so on. One sneaky way of playing the bc4 line is to play all the non-committal open sicilian moves like nf3, nc3, maybe even 00, and then wait for nc6 and only then transpose to an open sicilian with d4 and trick a najdorf player for instance.
Well, i have seen this a lot against me. It is not "per se" a bad opening. However, after me playing e6 many players leave the bishop on the a2-g9 diagonal where the bishop bites on granite. I would say that the Bowdler attack avoids many of the sharp and possibly unfamiliar Sicilian lines, yet does not give white any advantage if black is not freaking out ...
2 Bc4 or 3 Bc4 after 2 Nc3 or 2 Nf3 is not bad and is occasionally seen at top level e.g. Firouzja has played it.
An early ...e6 intending ...d5 is indeed indicated for black, but it does not by any means refute the Bowdler Attack.
Even if Bc4 is chased by ...e6 and ...d5 and it loses a tempo by going Bb5, then white sort of plays a reverse Nimzovich Indian Defence, not bad either.
White does not get any substantial advantage, but white does not get any substantial advantage in the heavily analysed main variations of the Sicilian either.
@tygxc do you think 3.e5 to prevent 3...e5 is a bad move?
I'm also amazed by how many Sicilian players resort to the Bowel Attack.
The bishop can easily be blocked and attacked, causing it to lose tempi.
That brings the opportunity for a queenside avalanche which I found to be the most successful strategy against it.
I usually play the obligatory e6 but delay d5 for more tactical opportunities in the center.
But... it can be a playable system.
May 9, 2022
0
#40
zone_chess wrote:
I'm also amazed by how many Sicilian players resort to the Bowel Attack.
The bishop can easily be blocked and attacked, causing it to lose tempi.
That brings the opportunity for a queenside avalanche which I found to be the most successful strategy against it.
I usually play the obligatory e6 but delay d5 for more tactical opportunities in the center.
But... it can be a playable system.
I’m more than happy to face the Bowdler Attack because white has far more potent options. I was curious and reviewing the line to see I’m scoring 78% against it.
I've never seen the Bowdler attack played. I don't play the Sicilian, but I've seen my friend's games when he uses the Sicilian and no one has played it against him.