Because Bxf2 is a retarded move
Repeating what ivandh has already said, preventing the white king from castling is not enough compensation for the sacrificed piece. Just continue developing with moves like Nf3. If black plays Bxf2 and you recapture with the king, black has no immediate way of exploiting your uncastled king. Your king should then be able to find shelter on the king's side without much difficulty.
Qe2 on the other hand is a bit awkward since it blocks the diagnal for your light square bishop, and the queen isn't really developed on that square. The lead in development would give black an advantage. Also, black can easily place his knight on d4 in this position, which would be annoying for white to deal with.
.... preventing the white king from castling is not enough compensation for the sacrificed piece.
Yes, this is the question I was really trying to ask.
Thanks for your informative reply.
Ken's Mom gave you very good advice!
Sacrificing material to weaken a king's defense is only a reasonable option when the sacrificing side has several active pieces and can unleash a well-calculated attack following up the sacrifice. In the scenario given, the bishop is the only active pieces, so white would have plenty of time to ward off any attacks following the sacrifice.
The best way to find out, is to play Bxf7 or Bxf2 in such early positions like that yourself - and see that you have nothing really. :-)
The white King can easily "slow-castle".
Heck, then, the half-open f-file might even be good for white.
You just lost Icaro a game, 2 years later :(
Believe it or not, played it myself but ussually started developing quietly and when I saw white had a chance to castle I sacrificed. I got a few very interesting games (Played it 4 times 3 wins 1 loss) For the 1 loss I sacrificed too early.... my mistake.
LOL@ the Dialogue on this forum should be put into a shakespearean play.
I fell out of my chair laughing.
I couldn't stop laughing LOL.
It looks like people were brutally honest 4 years ago LOL.
They didn't hold back anything HA HA.
Narrator: The OP is looking for insight on a dilemma.
The OP: Leaned me your ears lady's and gentlemen!
The OP: A quarrel between the Bishop and the King as arisen.
The OP: To play Bxf2+ or not to play Bxf2+ for that is the question?
The OP: A question which I am dare say I am afraid to have answered!
The OP: Fearing grave peril, I moved the queen to help shelter her majesty with the move Qe2.
The OP: Was my decision just?
Commenter 2 enters the stage
Commenter 2: NO because only a retard would play such a move.
Commenter 2 exits the stage with doves flying in the background for dramatic effect.
I can't help it.
I have to laugh again even while doing a shakespearean play of it.
This. If your opponent commits an unsound sacrifice and wants to give you a bishop for a pawn - Take it!. Then just retreat the king back to it's original position when he throws in the meaningless check with his queen. You're playing someone who knows absolutely nothing about chess if he sacs his bishop there.
Oh well I am stupid......... I still like doing it. It keeps up an exciting game.
In the above OP diagram Sac-ing because you can is losing.
Your excitement why it may happen in the begin will be short lived after white defends correctly.
I develope quickly and ussually when i am nearly done my opponent doesnt castle yet so i start attacking. (my bishop is in place waiting for the right moment)
So in other words: You don't care if it's a losing move that weakens your position and gives your opponent a material advantage. It's "fun" for you to throw the bishop away so you're going to keep doing it. Am I understanding this correctly?
It looks like people were brutally honest 4 years ago
This was back before the PC people took over.
Fiveofswords I hate bullet
I don't think Bc5 is a very good reply to the Vienna. Surely just 3. f4 must be good for white?