I wouldn't say it's weak exactly. It's a perfectly sound opening. However there are often more choices of where you will put your Bishop than where you will put your Knight, so committing the Bishop earlier limits later options. Also 2. Nf3 puts the opponent in a more reactive mode because they now have to deal with the threat to their Pawn.
Originally posted by TheGambitdont play it. play something that makes your opponent think you are a GM and stuff. 2.Bc4 already reveals the truth.
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4.....
I have played a quite few games as black against this opening move, when I'm white I prefer 2.Nf3, but the move with the bishop seems fairly sound, what is its weakness (most decent players I see play Nf3) and what is a good second move for black in your opinion?
well frankly speaking i think it is playable...
Except that GM's do actually play this opening. I do believe(don't quote me on this!) that someone played it against Kasparov, and Larsen played it quite a bit, with good results. There is some advantage to not committing the knight to f3. White can play f4, and reach a King's Gambit Declined, something black may not be familiar with.
Originally posted by TheGambitStudy the Fried Liver Attack, it's a favourite among 13 year olds (it seems) and players often transpose into those kinda setups with Bc4 after e4 e5. It's a perfectly sound opening, but filled with traps for both sides, I do agree it's a headache, especially when you are not in the mood of thinking in the opening (the fried liver will burn you if you don't think about it on move 2 and beyond)
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4.....
I have played a quite few games as black against this opening move, when I'm white I prefer 2.Nf3, but the move with the bishop seems fairly sound, what is its weakness (most decent players I see play Nf3) and what is a good second move for black in your opinion?