Why have I been encountering the Bowlder attack?

I remember posting this exact same thread way back when I was playing the Sicilian ;) I also thought it was unusual that so many players would think to immediately play the same second move that isn't that well regarded theoretically. it's just one of life's mysteries.

That said, and this has already been said, it isn't necessarily a bad move. Just not that good either.

I always assumed anyone who played this dud line for White just didn't have a clue, just like I had no clue this worthless move actually had a name. I propose it be renamed the Clueless Attack.

 actually black is better because 3...d5 gains time bishop has to move and black takes the centre. At least that is what I have been seeing and doing

This is a Kan Sicilian with the White Bishop set on the worst possible square- either d3 or e2, or finally g2 would be much preferrable. And of course Black may play either 4...b5 or 4...d5 before taking on d4.

 actually black is better because 3...d5 gains time bishop has to move and black takes the centre. At least that is what I have been seeing and doing

I've noticed something, though. I went against my father who played the Bowlder Attack (I was black). At the time I had no idea how to counter, so I played the knight-development move, but he sac'ed his bishop to prevent me from castling. I later lost. Be careful who you play and how they play. :P I fail.

I encounter this bowlder attack too often too.u would think that 1500 blitz players here would know better....but no,they don't.they play this same garbage over and over again.

I HATE playing against the Bowlder Attack, but thanks to this forum I have...ideas...

Play the Paulsen Variation against the Bowlder and White is hard pressed to gain advantage. The a and e pawns keep the Knight off b5 and d5, allowing the Queen resting spots at c7 or b6. Also, you have the option of declining the d4 advance (speculative as Black should simply exchange as in the main line Paulsen) or play cxd4 as previously stated. Playing d6 to prepare Nf6 is needed in most lines as otherwise the sharp move of e5 by White can pose difficulties for Black. Also, playing d6 at one point will allow those who are familiar with both the Paulsen and Schevenigan Systems to feel very comfortable, considering White's Bishop stinks at this square.

Overall, paying attention to development and sticking to well known lines in either the Paulsen of Schevenigan (and perhaps even some type of Dragon formation?), should be enough to while not convince your opponent his line is busted, will allow for many points to be scored for the defender.

Here is a typical Paulsen/Schevenigan setup against the Bowlder:

I hope this will help you to see some ideas for playing against this opening. You can also vary move orders and perhaps find faster ways to complete development as well. GOOD LUCK!!!

FYI: for those who may not know, the Kan and Paulsen are two names for the same opening (Both named after players who came to play 3. ... a6, to which they give equal credit). Similar to how in the west the Traxler-Angriff Attack is the same opening as the Petroff Defense (or Russian Game to a point).

They came into the game with the plan of a scholar's mate, and they're not phased by a sicilian. Watch, you'll usually see them move their queen out next.

There actually is a trap, and if black doesn't know better, blocking the trap can put black at a loss of development. Here's how white wishes the trap plays out (although it rarely does):

in this last diagram 5 Bxf7 still mates. :P

Why is your main line a win of the exchange instead of mate#

The Bowlder attack can be lethal.

I met it as Black recently, and got just what Black deserves (an equal position- whoever claims Black has an advantage is simply ignorant).

Due to my opponents poor play, I got an advantage (although I definitely did not handle the position in the best possible way- my mood was "I can win this patzer who plays 2.Bc4 even if I play bullcrap") and after a while I got a virtually winning position, but I played total nonsense (still I had the impression that I would win no matter what I play). After a few moves I even blundered, granting my opponent a big advantage by simple means, but he failed to notice, and eventually I won the game in the end- hardly something I am proud about, though.

The conclusion is: the Boulder is not better, or worse than most openings. What matters is playing well AFTER the opening.

Eh. I mainly started using Bowlder Attack as a desperate attempt to combat the Sicilian. I've played Bowlder Attack whenever Sicilian is initiated, and typically win. And the reason I put the trap in there instead of mate is because black typically moves 2. ...e6 and then 3. ...(insert knight move here). I actually win about 60% of the time with Bowlder Attack. As a side note, 3. Nf3 is vital if you're going to win Bowlder Attack as white.

The stats for 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 are pretty good. Is this still called a Bowlder Attack? I've been using it with some success for a repertoire that meets 2...Nc6 with 3.Bb5 Rossolimo and 2...e6 with d3 King's Indian Attack. Of course, I'm a beginner so we're usually off-book within a couple moves.

I don't get why everybody plays weird types of lines. I also get the Attack most of the time against the Sicilaian, which I play

I think e6 is the best reply. Make sense... Bishop attack f7 : weakest square in opening, you block it with a pawn. Also prepare to play d5 which gains extra center and push the bishop out of the way, gaining a tempo.