<Maybe the issue comes down to how you define 'unsound.' Some feel an opening is unsound for white if it allows black to equalize. I don't feel this way as I feel that the best openings for white that black has to allow leave black with an equal (drawn) position in the end. To me, and unsound opening for white leaves black with a large enough advantage to win with. How are you defining unsound?>

Not really; black has no real way of capitalising on it. Anyway, if what you say is true, then that pretty much invalidates all those variations in the open sicilian where black plays e6/d6 even though he wants to play e5/d5 eventually. Sometimes, a little buildup is required before you can play the move you want.

Since this kind of closed two knights/giuoco piano has been played by the likes of Adams, Anand, Kramnik, Karpov and even Kasparov, I'd hardly dismiss it out of hand. Although, then again, Kasparov did play the evans gambit as well, and could probably make any opening look good.

That's totally different. In the Open Sicilian the pawns on e6 and d6 play a key defensive role, and it's far enough into the game for black to start commiting into a certain position. In the Bishop's Opening, white's playing d3 before anything has happened, and this allows black to get at least an equal game.

<black has no real way of capitalising on it.>

Not in the near future, but eventually it will pay off. Why do you think so many opening books focus on getting up tempo? In fact, almost all gambits rely on this fact. In most gambits, the effects of white's lead in development (or something else) do not show themselves immediatly, but white hopes to later in the game get a winning attack.

<Since this kind of closed two knights/giuoco piano has been played by the likes of Adams, Anand, Kramnik, Karpov and even Kasparov, I'd hardly dismiss it out of hand. Although, then again, Kasparov did play the evans gambit as well, and could probably make any opening look good.>

No it isn't. In both cases, the pawn serves a defensive purpose briefly, before later being moved again. 3 d3 is not a pointless move, even if white never pushes the pawn to d4. It supports e4 and allows Nbd2.

<it's far enough into the game for black to start commiting into a certain position.>

Black normally plays e6 or d6 on move 2. How is that 'far enough into the game'? Normally black has decided what type of structure to play before the game has even begun. The same goes for white in the Bishop's opening, or any other opening for that matter.

<We're talking about the Bishop's Opening, not the Italian Game>

The Bishop's opening is very closely related to the italian game, and often transposes into it.

After 3 d3 Nc6 4 Nf3, we are in an italian game. Black can avoid it with something like 3 ...c6, but that's no better.

A few simple points:

There are reasons, besides fashion, that top GMs play the Ruy and the Slav more than the King's Gambit or the Bishop's opening. We don't have to follow their example, though.

Nothing silly about characterizing the King's Gambit as positional. You can find a lot of Bronstein games that fit that description.

I would describe an opening as "unsound" if it allows the opponent to gain a clearly superior position.

Under this criterion, the Bishop's Opening is certainly not unsound. But it gives White fewer chances to gain an advantage than the Ruy (or the King's Gambit, for that matter), which is why you don't see it much.

Tartakower and Du Mont's 500 Games of Chess includes an 18th century Bishop's Opening. After 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4, they write "The <Truth> -- as it was known in those far-off days." I love that note.

I also loved this post by Minty: <I don't know what level you play at, but I'm generally of the opinion that below about 2200, nobody really 'positionally outplays' their opponents. There are players down here who *think* they have a 'positional style' just because they play quiet openings, but really there are only good tacticians, bad tacticians, and cowards.>

Of course it isn't, but it is a defensive one, played because white's opening has allowed black to attack a pawn, and the consequence being that it will take white an extra move to push the pawn to d4.

<even if white never pushes the pawn to d4.>

A good point, but the pawn on d3 almost always has to advance at some point in the game, and all those little tempi can build up and cost you the game.

<Normally black has decided what type of structure to play before the game has even begun.>

Most players have if they are prepared, but remember that the pawn structures in certain openings (like the d6 or e6 Sicilian) have been analyzed over and over again by many to chess players and have shown themselves to be 'far enough into the game' from pure practical results.

<The Bishop's opening is very closely related to the italian game, and often transposes into it.>

Yes, but in the Italian Game the move d3 is more 'permitted' because the knights are out, castling is an option, and white has waited to see what black's response was (although in the Italian and Two Knights it usually doesn't make a difference). In the Bishop's Opening, white plays d3 (in my opinion) too early, and this of course is one of the main reasons that the Bishop's Opening is not popular at any levels. As far as transpositions, I personally think that it's better for black to stay in the Bishop's Opening, so I wouldn't consider the Bishop's Opening to be extremely related.

<Trying to argue that white's position is inferior after 3 d3 is pointless>

That would mean playing 3 ...c6, I guess, since pretty much everything else for black either transposes or is just plain bad. I think this line is probably the most drawish, but no more so than the Petrov (and certainly not as boring as the Petrov), which white can't avoid if he plays 2 Nf3.

For me, the bishop's opening is just a way to get into the italian game without giving black a chance to play the Petrov. Its popularity at GM level tends to be highest whenever the Petrov is doing well.

<keypusher: Tartakower and Du Mont's 500 Games of Chess includes an 18th century Bishop's Opening. After 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4, they write "The Truth -- as it was known in those far-off days." I love that note.>

<For me, the bishop's opening is just a way to get into the italian game without giving black a chance to play the Petrov. Its popularity at GM level tends to be highest whenever the Petrov is doing well. >

Yes! In fact, this move is highly reccomended by most authors (like in Opening Essentials Vol. 1 to name an example). While there's nothing wrong with transposing to the Italian Game, 3...c6 leaves white in a position that is inferior to many other openings.

3 ...c6 is still better for white. The problem with looking at the statistics in opening explorer is that the database contains many dubious games either from weak players or the 19th century etc.

For example, 3 ...c6 gives 29.6% white wins and 26.4% black wins. But if you go one move deeper, 4 Nf3 shifts the balance to 33.4% white wins against 19.5% for black, because all white's other alternatives are inferior. I can't browse any further on a free account, but I think white definitely has good chances after 4 ...d5 5 Bb3.

Once again, I never said it wasn't. I simply poited out that there are statistically and theoretically better moves for white out there. Unless I say that an opening's better for black, then I'm assuming it's better for white.

<Personally, I'd rather face the Paulsen (3 ...c6) 10 times, than endure the sheer dullness of the Petrov even once>

I think the exchange French isn't a clear draw either, although the position is almost certainly equal, or very close to it. For example 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 leads to positions from the QGA or Petrov, with White a tempo down. I find it hard to believe this tempo is going to make any real difference at club level.

Well, no opening is automatically a draw at club level. It's not just the opening, either - not long ago, I won a clearly drawn R+P endgame (an actual tablebase draw) against a reasonable opponent (145 ECF, about 1950ish Elo) just by playing on until he made an error.

'not a clear draw' isn't the same as 'fun', however, and if I'm bored by the position I'm more likely to play it badly.

Now concerning the strongest players in the world and the openings they pick. They often dont really have a reason. Usually, they learned their openings before they became so strong, these are the positions they understand, and they stick with it. When one of them plays something offbeat, by the way, it often gives them a tremendous edge. Im thinking of stuff like the game SHort won against l'ami in the 4 knights, the game carlsen won vs topolov in the alekhine, and the great results the reintoduction of the dragon has had. I play the bishops opening against elite players in casual games and i almost always have a very good advantage out of the opening, in fact, a better advantage than I know i might have if they were prepared.