countering 2. Bc4 in the Sicilian

As black, I often play something like 1.e4 c5  2.Bc4 e6  3.Nf3 d5

I usually get decent results with this, but I don't see it in the master games database, so I'm wondering: is there a clear refutation?

1.e4 c5  2.Bc4  seems bad for white, but if this doesn't work, then I'm not sure how to punish it.

Thanks so much if you can help!

James

Oh, by the way, here is the sequence played out

and here is the position on a static board:

Please forgive me as these are my first posts and I'm still learning how to use these features.

The reason you don't see it in the masters database is because masters won't play 2.Bc4. 2...e6 is the reply I use, and I haven't lost a single game to White using it. Black equalizes with ease and has a good game.

2. Bc4 isn't bad enough that you can just win against it straight away. But it allows black easy development and more space. With so many options for white at move 2 that don't allow this, it just isn't played by good players.

Here is an example from one of my games where white makes a few more mistakes and loses pretty forcefully.

2. Bc4 is typical but unimpressive.  If you don't normally play the  e6 sicilians you will end up in unfamilar terrain which is the main idea of Bc4 (not counting those who think it will enable them to mate at f7 in a couple moves).  3... d5 is an error as it plays to white's superior development, opening lines, giving targets etc.  In many e6 sicilians multiple pawn moves are encountered early on but they don't normally open things up but rather fend white off.

In general: After 1.e4 c5  2.Bc5, I'm pretty confident that 2... e6 is best. A friend once said that in this position, white's bishop is 'biting rock'.

To Cutebold: 1.e4 c5  2.Bc5 is certainly in the database, with about 170 games. So is the position from 1.e4 c5  2.Bc5 e6  3.Nf3, with over 200 games (some probably transposed from 1.e4 c5  2.Nf3). What's odd to me is that from this position, there are 6 continuations, and 3... d5 isn't one of them. The most common response, 3... d6 seems unnecessarily passive, and has pretty bad statistics. The next-most-common continuation, 3... Nc6, looks better. What I'd like is a good plan from this position. I kind of like 3... a6, because it makes things even harder for the bishop, and sets up more queenside expansion, but it might be too slow on development.

To Loomis: Thanks for posting the game. 14.Bg4 is a great move.

To CarlMI: Your comment on 3... d5 seems sensible, and I'd be interested in hearing more along those lines. Again, what I'm looking for is a plan against the early 2.Bc4 specifically... or are you suggesting that I should just expect this to transpose into something like Scheveningen or Sicialian four knights? Probably someone who is playing 2.Bc4 might not open the position with d4 anytime soon, so I'll want a plan that adapts to that...

I don't really trust a database for something like this. Because strong players aren't playing 2. Bc4, many of the games that feature this move won't be games of the top quality.

Loomis, what was your plan after 10... c4 11.b3

After 11. b3 Qb6+ black is threatening bxc3 which wins a pawn and threatens Ba6. 12. Qe3 gets killed by 12. ... Bc5 13. Nd4 Ng4

[Edit, in the chance that I've overlooked some tactics, if 11. b3 is white's best way to untangle, it highlights how bad his position is. If black wants to slow play it 11. ... a5 might be ok]

Yeah I think you're right. Great game.

Actually I'd look at typical Kan/Paulsen and Taminov games.  That should give you a basic feel for the structures and plans.  Watch for a K-side blitz but you should be able to push your Q-side pawns (kicking the Bishop), fianchetto your Queen Bishop, and counter attack sooner since White will be losing time with the Bishop.  With Bc4 vs e6 you almost get a free move.

Thank you for the replies, everyone. Very helpful, as people play 2.Bc4 against me surprisingly often!

2 Bc4 is a developing move not wrong. Some strong players like Yge Visser play it.

2. Bc4 is poor and offers Black easy equality. This allows Black to choose their structure to take full advantage of the bishop being committed to c4.

It is not hard to see why this is the case, starting with how Masters have done in their games with it. Numerous opening explorers give very good results for Black. For example, the opening explorer here gives Black a 66% win rate in Master games, compared to 33% if White plays Nf3.

In all the rapid and slower time control games played on the other site, White has a 43% win rate for the Bowdler, compared to 47-48% for the other major Sicilian options.

You should also get your facts right before saying anything. I looked up Yge Visser's games on chessgames and he never played 2. Bc4. He only played Bc4 on the third move, which has a big difference as Black has often committed with a move like d6 or Nc6!

I also looked up two players who did play the Bowdler for a bit. Vitezslav Rasik has played 9 games and Marek Vokac has played 6 games. Out of their 15 games, only one was a win for White.

#15
Black gets equality with the Najdorf or Sveshnikov too.
2 Bc4 3 Nc3 or 2 Nc3 3 Bc4 just transposes.
Adolf Anderssen also played 2 Bc4
Win% rates say nothing.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001427 
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001357 

Your ignorance is really showing here. If the Bowdler was as good as the Najdorf or Sveshnikov, then why do the top players not play it? You can't say it is due to fashion because there would be a period where it was popular, when it has never been popular since the Sicilian became a key defense to 1. e4!

By playing 2. Bc4 White has already committed to something! If it is delayed to move 3 it means that it is Black who has committed to their structure, which makes a big difference! For example 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. d4 cxd4 6. Nxd4 transposes to the Fischer-Sozin Attack, while 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Bc4 is bad because Black is not required to transpose into an Open Sicilian and can take advantage of the bishop on c4!

You claim that win % rates mean nothing. The fact is, why does White score so badly? In a sample of over 600 (chess.com opening explorer), it is extremely unlikely that it is due to the White player being lower rated in every game. So what is your explanation for such a low scoring rate for White?

Sicilian theory and the level of defense have also increased significantly since Anderssen's time. Adolf Anderssen also played and won regularly with the King's Gambit, but you would not claim that it is good because of that.

stop talking lol

Incorrect, it's not a blunder, and it's not always easy to capitalize. 

#18
Who is ignorant?

Bc4 is a developing move it cannot be wrong. It is a viable sideline.
Here are 2 games from the Dutch Championship
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2109498

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1327100