There's lots of times this rule can be bent, and more than a little :)
1.e5 e5 2.Bc4 is perfectly respectable. 2...Nf6 is the usual and good response.
Bishop's Opening
Sort:
That's what i usually play, but i was messing with it on my board trying out some other ideas and nothing really seemed solid for black in terms of refuting the bishop move.
Jun 22, 2009
0
#4
I play the Bishop's opening occasionally myself. I believe the best response for Black is considered 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6!, preparing d5. (3.Nc3 would transpose to the Vienna Game.)
I wouldn't dispute that Black has easy equality, but I find that since the positions are a bit off the beaten track, it still produces an interesting game.
Just following up here, and none of this may be relevant, but I still feel a need to ask before my brain completely explodes. I’ve seen e4, e5 Bc4, Nf6 d3 actually referred to as the Berlin Defense which confuses me. I thought the Berlin stemmed from the Ruy. Has anyone else heard of/seen this, or am I completely off my rocker. Hopefully these aren’t pointless questions, it’s just getting tricky to learn openings when I see two openings called the same thing that look nothing like each other. Anyone?
Xylograph wrote:
gimly wrote:
Just following up here, and none of this may be relevant, but I still feel a need to ask before my brain completely explodes. I’ve seen e4, e5 Bc4, Nf6 d3 actually referred to as the Berlin Defense which confuses me. I thought the Berlin stemmed from the Ruy. Has anyone else heard of/seen this, or am I completely off my rocker. Hopefully these aren’t pointless questions, it’s just getting tricky to learn openings when I see two openings called the same thing that look nothing like each other. Anyone?
That's actually quite a common thing. For example, there's a variation in the semi slav called the Botvinnik variation, and there is also a Botvinnik variation in the caro kann.
Great point. So what is it that makes to different positions earn the same opening name? I understand there are some similarities, but is that enough?
'to' should have been 'two'
gimly wrote:
Great point. So what is it that makes to different positions earn the same opening name? I understand there are some similarities, but is that enough?
Openings are usually named after the players who pioneered them, not by what they look like. If Botvinnik played two different openings, they can both be named after him, regardless of how different they are.
Nimzowitsch has 1. e4 Nc6, Nimzowitsch defense, the Nimzowitsch Sicilian, 1 .e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 and the ever popular Nimzo-Indian, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4.
You could also transpose that into an Italian with Nf3 the next turn...
Interestingly enough, I've just started to adopt the Bishop's Opening as my white choice. Who wants to play a takeback game so I can learn variations? 
I have a bit of a beginner question here, but i was wondering if there was any solid refutation to the line e4, e5 bc4, known, i believe as the bishop's opening. I only ask simply because i thought the adage was Knights before Bishops. Is this one area where the 'rule' can be bent a little? Thanks again.