Why have I been encountering the Bowlder attack?

It´s just a move, you develop a piece and prepare castling, in addition, you avoid to fall in your opponent preparation, where is the fun  of playing "sound" moves (2.Nf3 3.d4) if your opponent has memorised 15 moves of a main line and you'll find yourself crushed anyway? At least you are getting a game in fair terms. By no means is a bad move or a refuted line, just turn on your engine and check it yourself.

It is not just this opening line.  The openings I meet on chess.com are entirely different than those I meet OTB.  For example I meet a lot of Exchange variations in the French; I get e3 by White in the King's Indian and 3. Bd3 in the Pirc.  The Center-Counter/Scandinavian is very popular too.  I even meet 1. d4 e5?! quite a lot (and at bullet I'll even lose to it!).

These are all rare (or non-existent) in OTB chess. Instead I see  a lot of Tarraasch and Classical French , Main line and Saemisch KIng's Indians, Classical Pircs.

Certain engines are horrible at assessing while they are good at finding the best movies, so I don't recommend using them to see how good an opening is. It is also important for you to assess the position yourself and not getting used to engines telling you what is right and wrong as you don't learn much from their moves and assessments until you're relatively strong.

lolololololololololololololololololo

we can lol even more if you wish

Presicely.

Actually I'd rather prefer a less commital move to get out of book, e.g. 2.Be2, which brought GM Igor Kovalenko many nice wins and contributed to his recent 2700+ rating, but 2.Bc4 is a fairly decent way to play "out of book". You just have to know how to continue soundly, and not opt for nonsense such as delivering a mate on f7.

Well.. I don't think 2.Na3 was tailored by Vadim Zviaginsev to be a "refutation of the Sicilian". But it is an "illogical move" with many logical points, which are quite enough to make 2.Na3 a white repertoire recommendation in a fairly recent repertoire DVD

https://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/e4_for_the_creative

I have an almost perfect score with 2.Na3, but all the games (about two dozen) were in fast time controls.

Right now I am ready to adopt 2.Be2 in serious correspondence games, mainly due to issues as white in two mainline Sicilian variations (Najdorf, Sveshnikov) where white can play twenty-something book moves, and still achieve nothing close to a nominal advantage...

Can't decide if unfunny troll, or if I should move to Lithuania because they are just handing out titles...

Whitehat said:

 "black has an immense advantage here"

Is he kidding? Black has a slight advantage at most.

Also variations slightly worse than the best ones do not lose the game. The player loses the game.

I like to play ..e6 and ..a6, then based on what moves White has out choose between one of two ideas.  Idea A being to play ..b5, ..Nc6, ..Qc7, ..Bb7 and leaving the f7-e6-d7 triangle intact for a while; if White plays carelessly Black can try for a quick knockout via Siberian Trap (..Nf6-g4, ..Nd4).  Idea B being to play a quick ..Nf6 and ..d5 where the pawn on a6 prevents White from playing Bb5+ when his Bishop is hit, where typically White exchanges pawns on d5 and Black has the pawn center; White tries to apply pressure.

For what it is worth, I frequently play Rapid against Chess.com's Computer Level 2 (est. 1250-1350 ELO), and I see this line (the Bowlder Attack) about half the time whenever I defend against 1. e4 with the Sicilian.  I suspect that this line is simply programmed into its opening book with a given frequency.  As such, part of the popularity of this move on the site may be due to the example set by these bots. 

I've no real evidence; it's just a thought. . .

And, for what it is worth, it is possible for Black to make early tactical errors against this opening that does give Black an advantage.  That is to say, for those (like me) just starting out in the Sicilian, this line can be a setback at first.  It took several losing games (trying in vain to force a transposition to the Open Sicilian, for example) before I realized e6 and Nc6 where the appropriate refutations.

If White wants to take Black out of their book then may as well play:

1.e4 2.c5 2.d4

Really? The Smith Morra is probably almost as common as 2 Bc4.

Now that I have a bit more experience playing chess, I think I finally see why the Bowlder Attack is decent (and in my opinion, the only viable defense against Sicilian, at least at mid-level play). It allows for mostly normal development:

Hmm

5.d4 is an interesting idea that could catch a lot of people off guard. It looks like it transposes into some kind of Bc4 Scheveningen. I don't know if this is always theoretically dangerous for Black but it has to be playable.

I end up playing this as white.  What is a stronger option to the sicillian then?  Knight to F3?

Bowdler, as in "bowdlerized".  After Thomas Bowdler, the man who bowdlerized Shakespeare in the 19th Century by publishing an edition for families that eliminated certain objectionable words, actions or characters.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler

In addition to his talents as an "improver" of Shakespeare, Bowdler was known as a strong chess player, playing Philidor.

This is usually what happens in my games when I see this line. I've been seeing it less and less, but it still shows up from time to time. I feel pretty comfortable in this position as black.

re the Bowdler, Black can easily screw up by playing a6, b5 and an automatic Bb7, and then get sunk by the weakness on e6 if the d7 pawn is moved, so there is a point to it. It isn't as bad as it may look for white. I would say that white shouldn't play a4 but a3 instead. Then white also gets to counter attack against b5. I think Bowdler played it wrongly. 3.Qe2 is horrible, surely.

re #84, surely white has to play 3. Nc3.