No, it isn´t. In general I don´t think White has any chance of a theoretical advantage if he sacrifices both his central pawns.

Also you must have knowledge about the Two Knights since Black will often transpose into this after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6.

Offering a transposition to a Bishop´s Gambit is certainly possible:

A) 3.f4 exf4 4.d4 (4.Nf3 h6! 5.d4 g5 leads to the Hanstein-Gambit)
    Nf6 (Qh4+!?) 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Bxf4 0-0 7.Nf3 looks good for White but
    Black may be able to play Nxe4 now.

Denying Black this possibility with 

B) 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d3 Be7 5.f4 is a calmer way to push the f-pawn with
    Black playing a passive declined KG.

A third idea is

C) 3.Nf3 Nf6 which can also be followed up a la an Italian Game with
    4.d3 Be7 5.c3 which resembles a closed Rup Lopez.

My preference is B) which should be good enough for a small advantage.
 

Several books have "thought" that 2...Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 should lead to an edge for White, and that 4...Be7 is better, but I get the impression that that probably isn't a widely-held view now.

In my view the Bishop´s Opening is indeed very reliable. I played it as one of my main weapons in the last 10-15 years vs. opposition up to 2300 Elo with quite a good score. Of course one can not expect a theoretical advantage.

It´s a great transpositional tool, so it´s nice to have a good understanding of a wider range of the open games like the Italian or KG declined.

2.Bc4 is nice. You may not get an opening advantage against accurate play, that's true. But that's true with the Ruy Lopez too. I think it's mostly a question of fashion. Maybe 90% of the best players plays the Ruy Lopez today, but in the past, they played Italian and King's Gambit. I would not be surprised if in the future, 2.Bc4 or 2.Nf3 and 3.Bc4 will be more popular again at the top. After 2.Bc4, you will mostly face 2..Nf6 where 3.d4!?, the Urusov gambit will mostly transpose into a Two Knight defense "modern line", which may be equal but clearly not "dead draw", with chances to fight for a win. The calm idea of 3.d3 and 4.c3 may not give fears but that's still possible to outplay your opponent calmly, and I find that the resultings positions are close to many Ruy Lopez lines. 3.Nc3 entering into the hybrid Vienna/Bishop opening is equal too. You can often reach King's Gambit declined too, which is between = and +/=.

My conclusion: 2.Bc4 is a good move, not sufficient to get an advantage by force, but that's the case with the Ruy Lopez too.  At amateur play you might even reach advantageous positions just in the opening because the positions may be less known for your opponent. 2.Bc4 may suit every type of play, after that move you can still choose your own way. At GM play, it's maybe more hard to play for a win compared to the Ruy Lopez because Black is supposed to equalize "easily" but here too I am not sure that the opening is more promising even at that level compared to the Ruy Lopez.

Hi everybody,

I was wondering what could be the reason for the low popularity of the bishop's opening (1.e4 e5 2. Bc4)?   It seems to me that it can be a quite effective transpositional weapon.

Thanks