Is there a beginner guide about why people move their bishops up five squares in early game?

It seems to be a common move in early game to move your bishop up five squares (B5/G5 as white, or B4/G4 as black).  But every time I do it, it feels like I'm putting myself in a risky position, while giving opponent free opportunity to move their bishops and knights, etc.  I'm not understanding how to evaluate the successfulness of this strategy

 

Discovering Chess Openings: Building Opening Skills from Basic Principles...

By John Emms.  Many chess teachers advise against spending excessive time on the study of openings variations for the beginner, but they do agree it is important to acquire a solid understanding of opening PRINCIPLES right from the start.  This book explains the basics of opening FUNDAMENTALS better than any other book.  If you are uncertain about what you should be thinking and doing during the opening, this book does an exceptional job of addressing these issues.  

Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

A good rule of thumb is:

You should generally only move your bishop to the 5th rank in the opening (eg. Bb5) if it's attacking or pinning something. If there's nothing there to attack/pin, then you should generally move to the 4th rank instead (eg. Bc4).

Here's an example of moving your bishops to the 5th rank and why it's okay:

There are two common reasons to move a bishop to those squares early in the game.
One would be to pin the knight to either the opponent’s king or queen, and the other would be to threaten to remove the knight.
When the knight is pinned to the king, the knight can’t move or the king would be in check - it’s illegal. When the knight is pinned to the queen, moving the king would allow the bishop to capture the queen.
The bishop threatening to capture the knight is also threatening to remove the protection the knight is giving to a center pawn or central square (aka “removing the guard”). For example, if the bishop captures the knight and the opponent in turn captures the bishop, an opponent’s central pawn may now be unguarded and can now be captured.
Hopefully that makes some sense 🤷🏻‍♂️

There few are main reasons to bring the bishop out early:

1. Developing our minor pieces is one of the main opening game principles. We should have our minor pieces ready to attack/defend before entering middle game.

2. We should control the center of the board e4,e5,d4,d5. Putting our pawns in the center and bishops on c4 or d4 helps a lot. Controling the Center is crucial because it helps gaining mobility for our pieces to move from one side of the board to another.

3. Bb5,Bg5 helps pinning the knight, which decreases your opponent's control over center.

4.If you develop your bishop first, you can develop your pawns then, but if you develop your pawns first it blocks your bishop's lines, making it difficult to develop.

5. Even if your opponent attacks your bishop with pawn to a7 or e7 you can safely retrieve your bishop back, or make an exchange by capturing their knight, but on the other hand your opponent's Queen's side or king's side protection is weakened!

So don't worry, play games developing your bishops early! As you play more games you'll get better understanding how it works!👍

Some people play 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 to which I always reply Qg5 intending to retreat to g6. I get a good game and consider that I am doing them a favour by punishing them for not playing 2. Nf3

https://www.chess.com/blog/KeSetoKaiba/opening-principles-again

It doesn't matter where you move it as long as you move it on move 3 or later.

привет

YouTube “everything you need to know about chess” video series with I’m Rench. It’s awesome.

bearing in mind that GMs have said everything before 2000 mmr is tactics, a slightly more interesting version of this question is why does black put a Bishop on e7 much more often then white puts a Bishop on e2? I have my own opinion, but it's interesting to think about

I put my Bishop on e7 every time I play against the King's Gambit. I have done for 50 years with a lot of success. Cunningham by name and cunning by nature.

The reason it's done is that the "door" will most likely shut behind the bishop when pawn to D3 is played.  That is down to get the dark square bishop out or to place a knight there.  Generally you don't want a bishop behind a pawn when developing pieces and you don't want your knight on the rim.

Yes, you are right, Black cannot take the g6 pawn yet. 

I much prefer c4 to b5.  The pin on that diagonal if your opponent castles that way is powerful.  Taking the knight early game is short sighted unless it serves a purpose.  The main purpose is to discard your bishop because your opening will make it 'bad' (immobile due to your own pawn structure).  There may also be tactics in the knight pin or capture but most of the time there isnt anything there.  A weaker player can get the center control / pawns messed up by the pin (the knight defends key pawns often), but it won't usually phase anyone who has played a few games and seen it enough times.   

Remember that these early moves are mostly jockeying for center control.  View it from that idea, and look at how the knights and bishops attack and defend the central squares to defend or break up the pawn ideas there.  Study it from that angle.   The move may or may not fit into this; remember that not every opponent has a real plan and is often just parroting what others do. 

Your question is very specific but given your rating, I feel you would be better served by understanding the general principles and fundamentals that underpin all opening theory, rather than this particular move. This way, you will be  equipped to perhaps understand other particular moves which occur frequently in your chosen openings, the motives of which elude you at the moment. Your chess experience will be much less frustrating and much more enjoyable. 

Here is an excellent free and trainable book: https://www.chessable.com/smithys-opening-fundamentals/course/21302/ 

It's all theory.  In the Italian game like you posted, the move gets you one step closer to castling atacks the middle and the weak f7 square.  Black already has things to deal with.

Sorry to go against conventional chess wisdom but sometimes we need to do it. I like to punish anyone who plays 2. Bc4 with 2 ... Qg5. Why have people bothered to play moves like 2. Nf3 for centuries?