The Bishop's Opening? I assume it's considered second rate because 2. Bc4 doesn't attack anything while developing, unlike 2. Nf3. The same drawback is true of the Vienna Game 2. Nc3.
Bishop Attack
Sort:
It's pure garbage. Move onto something established...something tried and true. If you're new, there's no reason to be playing anything other than 1.e4 and 1.d4 openings to start getting a feel for the game and basic, thematic positions. I'm new but not as new as you so a stronger, experienced player could obviously confirm or disregard my advice.
Basically, the only reason you like this opening is because you're playing against players rated 1000-1200. Nothing that this opening does for you now, will it do for you at 1400+. Threatening f7 with your bishop isn't a crisis for a player at that point.
It can be a useful transposition tool to play the Italian but avoid the Petroff for example.
I don't think he necessarily means getting the queen out too.
The main problem as I see it is that you're not putting pressure on e5. After Nf6 you can't defend with Nc3 and hope to keep an advantage because black can just play Nxe4.
Nov 9, 2015
0
#6
Fiveofswords wrote:
actually bc4 puts more pressure on e5 than nf3 does because the possibility of playing f4 still exists
Ahem. Has FoS been reading Philidor?
It might be noted that Nf3 attacks e5 directly. That's usually regarded as fairly compelling pressure. However, keeping the prospects of f2-f4 alive is also pressure, while the direct attack on f7 is not inconsequential.
Having played against Bishop's Opening with some regularity, I can attest that underestimating it leads to peril.
What do you think about the bishop attack. It had become by far my favorite opening. However, I found that it doesn't work as well on higher ranked opponents.