Bishop opening

 to win?

And yes...it is that simple.

The most common strategy in the Bishop's Opening - and the Vienna Game that often transposes into the same positions - is to delay playing Nf3 until you play f4 relatively early (typically move 5-7). Very often, you are able to castle Q-side and send a Pawn Storm right up the Kingside, backed by Rooks.

In both games below, chess.com's analysis says 5 f4 is an inaccuracy, but in Tseitlin, Glazkov, Young, The Complete Vienna, p. 23, it says 5 f4 is "almost forced!" and 5 f4 ... 6 Nf3! "was the move order preferred by Rudolph Spielmann, leading the game into a reliable variation of the King's Gambit Declined."

Here's a Vienna Game (transpose White's moves 2, 3, and 4 and it's the Bishop's Opening) I played using that strategy:

Here's another Vienna/Bishop's Opening I played a while back that shows you how powerful it's King's Gambit nature is:

Yeah, but if you want that stuff isn't the Vienna a more accurate move order? If you play Bc4 you're not attacking e4 so why would Black play Nc6? Black can play Nf6 and attack the pawn instead and after d3 (Nc3 does not actually defend e4 and is a Vienna Game not a Bishop's opening), and then c6 and d5 and get a big center, something usually only White is able to achieve in the open game. Very strong plays still play the Bishop's and play into those lines. Now White has some d4 gambits too, but that's not what Carlsen played; he just let Black have the center and then Black gave up the center like 2 moves later. Basic principals tell us that should be bad. What is the strategy there?

In the first game, does 6...Ng4 work?

When I coached a very successful high school chess team in the 1990's and early 2000's, early in that period the Bishop's Opening had been out of favor for 60 years!  There were hardly any books about it and Internet info was very limited.

But it was my team's secret weapon.  The move order 1 e4 2 Bc4 3 d3 avoids things like the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna and similar stuff in the Vienna where Black plays Nf6, Nxe4 then d5 to fork White's N and B and win the piece back and produce a wild game.

The idea of moving the f-Pawn to f4 before Nf3 gave all my high school players from (700-1500 OTB ratings) a basic plan to use: often players at that level have trouble seeing what kind of a middlegame plan to use and the Bishop's opening provides them with a basic blueprint - as I explained in my last post.

We won three consecutive county championships in our state's most competitive county and won the 3rd, 4th, and 5th place team trophies in the State Scholastic Championships.  Then Kasparov played the Bishop's Opening in a World Championship game and it came back into favor.

Still, there are not a lot of books written specifically about it. Gary Lane, The Bishop's Opening Explained (c.2004) is the main one I know - replacing his 1993 book, Winning with the Bishop's Opening that my chess team studied.

John Emms Attacking with 1 e4 has sections for attacking the Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Alekhine, etc. For 1...e5 it's choice of attacking opening is the Bishop's Opening, devoting 32 pages to it.

There is an extremely extensive and good online treatment of the Bishop's Opening that also looks at the Urosov Gambit here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/index.html

In general, I like the Vienna order better but the Bishop's Opening is playable.

The main reason you might want to play the Bishop's Opening order is to avoid the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation that begins: 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 and if 4 Nxe4 then 4...d5 wins back the piece and produces a wild game.

Yes, so d3 avoids that and you go into the Carlsen Yue line I asked about. I still don't understand why White would play into that and let Black have a big center, and also why at the top level Black would not try to hold the center when that happens.

Or maybe 4. Nf3 already goes against your lines as you don't get f4 in.

Engine.

I forgot to mention 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 c6 4 Nf3 d5 5 Bb3 Bd6 6 exd5 7 Bg5.

If we're talking engines Stockfish seems to like both of the obvious moves Be6 and Bc7 there and is saying Black has equalized. This way of playing seems very natural for Black so I still don't have an answer to my question.

Hmm...to Be6, the lines are 8 Nc3 and then

....Qa5 should fill in w/  9 O-O Nc6 10 Qe1 

....Bc7 9 d4 +.47

....Bb4 9 O-O  +.51

....Be7 9 O-O +.57

Bc7 either Nc3 or d4 is about +.5

Its a case of black's d pawn will be isolated or something worse usually.

Giving up the center by taking on d4 in that position looks maybe even weirder than when Yue took on e4 earlier. Why not play e4 or Nc6 or something? Also Carlsen didn't take on d5.

All good questions, and i will answer them as best i can:

1. There are so many possibilities in this opening, i would have died of old age trying to cover them.  Besides...I dont play e4 openings, and this was simply a couple lines, and wha i saw.  

2. 1.e4 was played on the first move.

3. None of us are playing Carlsen.  I think its always a good idea to "play your own game". and not blindly copy cat what GM's play.

bishops opening is a good opening. theory claims that equalizes more quickly (or even that its just plain equal) but statistics say otherwise. White gets a very playable game with relatively little theory right from the start and can choose to play a little more original, or prepare an early f4, or even transpose back to other openings like the italian or vienna.

in some lines, black in fact does get the big center (the lines with early c6), but its a hard to defend center and while theory claims this equal i much rather have white who gets to undermine the bulky center during the whole game, even with natural moves.

give it a try. even kasparov and carlsen use them in their repertoires from time to time with good results for a reason.