Thoughts on Trompowsky Attack

As I explained, religiously playing ...Bg7 “automatically” is old theory.
You can even find lines where turning it into a bogo actually makes sense.

Just a few IVs: 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 g6 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. c4

4... f5 5. g3 d5 6. cxd5 Qxd5 7. Nf3 Bg7 8. Nc3 Qa5

4... d5 5. cxd5 Qxd5 6. Nc3 Qd8 7. g3 f5 intending to prepare ...c6

Both seem fine to me.

Wouldn’t feel overly unhappy playing black in your line as well.

As I explained, religiously playing ...Bg7 “automatically” is old theory. You can even find lines where turning it into a bogo actually makes sense. Just a few IVs: 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 g6 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. c4 4... f5 5. g3 d5 6. cxd5 Qxd5 7. Nf3 Bg7 8. Nc3 Qa5 4... d5 5. cxd5 Qxd5 6. Nc3 Qd8 7. g3 f5 intending to prepare ...c6 Both seem fine to me. Wouldn’t feel overly unhappy playing black in your line as well.

CM Sarg0n

#32

I tried to put the Bishop to d6, I tried d7-d5 lines. It just feels inferior to me. If you like it, fine. I have moved on.

Korniliousim

#33

I agree that it's inferior to other lines.
I didn't agree that it's bad.
That's all.
I also think that your opponent's lack of leavers (which I didn't necessarily agree with if you play a different move order) doesn't suggest your position is winning.
Even as a static structure with f5 and c6 it is completely defendable.
My thoughts can be summed up by saying that if all white has to show for is a 0.3 score in a rather arduous technical position he may stretch into a miserable something that is still a draw then the whole line is questionable even if it is "better".

I have moved on as well ;-)
Cheers.

I agree that it's inferior to other lines. I didn't agree that it's bad. That's all. I also think that your opponent's lack of leavers (which I didn't necessarily agree with if you play a different move order) doesn't suggest your position is winning. Even as a static structure with f5 and c6 it is completely defendable. My thoughts can be summed up by saying that if all white has to show for is a 0.3 score in a rather arduous technical position he may stretch into a miserable something that is still a draw then the whole line is questionable even if it is "better". I have moved on as well ;-) Cheers.

Concerning your points I just want to clarify something in this debate. I said the position is playable for black but IMO and objectively what will black do? White will do a majority attack and yes I agree it is not a won position. It is playable, defendable and yes perhaps according to the computer 0.3 is not that much for white.

My point is yes playable in theory but in practice you will be only in a passive position that will lead you likely to a defeat. That is why the win rate is so impressive for white. @Sarg0n and I are in agreement and not interested to play that position from the black side.

To conclude I am not here to convince you I am right you are wrong. I feel it is just what chess is about making choices. Some people prefer some positions, we do not have the same taste, repertoire and so on...

It was an interesting thread by the way

@Korniliousim Concerning your points I just want to clarify something in this debate. I said the position is playable for black but IMO and objectively what will black do? White will do a majority attack and yes I agree it is not a won position. It is playable, defendable and yes perhaps according to the computer 0.3 is not that much for white. My point is yes playable in theory but in practice you will be only in a passive position that will lead you likely to a defeat. That is why the win rate is so impressive for white. @Sarg0n and I are in agreement and not interested to play that position from the black side. To conclude I am not here to convince you I am right you are wrong. I feel it is just what chess is about making choices. Some people prefer some positions, we do not have the same taste, repertoire and so on... It was an interesting thread by the way

swimmerBill

#35

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bxf6 exf6 5.e3 c6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.Qf3
O-O 8.Nge2 Re8 9.O-O-O b5 10.g4 b4 11.Na4 Nd7 12.h4 Nb6
13.Nxb6 axb6 14.g5 fxg5 15.hxg5 Rxa2 16.gxh6 Ra1+ 17.Kd2 Rxd1+
18.Kxd1 g6 19.Rg1 Be6 20.Nf4 Bxf4 21.Qxf4 Kh7 22.Kd2 Qe7
23.Qe5 Rg8 24.f4 f6 25.Qh5 Bf7 26.Qh4 c5 27.c3 c4 28.Bc2 b5
29.Ke2 b3 30.Bb1 Qd6 31.Qh5 Qd7 32.Qh4 f5 33.Rg5 Be6 34.Qg3
Kxh6 35.Qg2 Qf7 36.e4 fxe4 37.Qg3 Bf5 38.Ke3 Kg7 39.Rh5 Rh8
40.Rxh8 Kxh8 41.Qh4+ Kg7 42.Qd8 0-1

OK-found it- here is an interesting game in Veresov-Trompowsky that features 3. ... h6: [Event "Curacao Candidates"] [Site "Willemstad CUW"] [Date "1962.05.23"] [EventDate "1962.05.02"] [Round "13"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Mikhail Tal"] [Black "Efim Geller"] [ECO "A45"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "83"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bxf6 exf6 5.e3 c6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.Qf3 O-O 8.Nge2 Re8 9.O-O-O b5 10.g4 b4 11.Na4 Nd7 12.h4 Nb6 13.Nxb6 axb6 14.g5 fxg5 15.hxg5 Rxa2 16.gxh6 Ra1+ 17.Kd2 Rxd1+ 18.Kxd1 g6 19.Rg1 Be6 20.Nf4 Bxf4 21.Qxf4 Kh7 22.Kd2 Qe7 23.Qe5 Rg8 24.f4 f6 25.Qh5 Bf7 26.Qh4 c5 27.c3 c4 28.Bc2 b5 29.Ke2 b3 30.Bb1 Qd6 31.Qh5 Qd7 32.Qh4 f5 33.Rg5 Be6 34.Qg3 Kxh6 35.Qg2 Qf7 36.e4 fxe4 37.Qg3 Bf5 38.Ke3 Kg7 39.Rh5 Rh8 40.Rxh8 Kxh8 41.Qh4+ Kg7 42.Qd8 0-1

Katerr

#36

The main choices against Tromp are 2.- c5 and 2.- Se4. They both are really good.
I played Tromp a few years with White (because I was too lazy for theory) but it was nothing. I only got in good positions when Black was too cautious and played moves like e6 or d5. For a player who normally plays Queens Gambit those positions are tailormade.
But even then I did not make a score like I made with the traditional setup of 1.d4; 2.c4.
So it is like Wells says in his book about Trompowsky: "Knights first." (Which is as Wells also says a sentence by Lasker).

The main choices against Tromp are 2.- c5 and 2.- Se4. They both are really good. I played Tromp a few years with White (because I was too lazy for theory) but it was nothing. I only got in good positions when Black was too cautious and played moves like e6 or d5. For a player who normally plays Queens Gambit those positions are tailormade. But even then I did not make a score like I made with the traditional setup of 1.d4; 2.c4. So it is like Wells says in his book about Trompowsky: "Knights first." (Which is as Wells also says a sentence by Lasker).

dboing

edited

#37

And the "..." statement that was omitted. probably some "rule" of thumb often used out of orignial context of discovery, but clearly of interest to not only me as being explicit here. Just to clarify the level of discourse I was asking.

It also depends on the intent of poster toward inclusion of other forum curious chess players on lichess. I find that just hinting at an argument and hiding it, is about refusing discussion. or wanting to keep expertise in some private club superposed over lichess. Some people even think rating should have some impact on who can discuss. Some act as if that should be the case. Not necessarily with intent. I would point to habits and competition over-generalized to any activity as probably cause.

now i will go back and read your post for the content. thanks. (normal is not always good).

There is a lot or room between explanation to atomic elements of a conceptual construction, and the added reference that would have put some meat to explorer for the non-expert reading that part of the post (which i used to not only use the "..." example. Your posts are not as minimalist, only that which I was curious about getting some handle to associate with the rest of the discussion... In order of cryptic "...." comes before yours.

@Korniliousim Thanks. I was not asking to define the themes. Although I always like a recap of terminology, as there is also semantic drift there quite possible. I was merely asking for 1 step more explicit. The particular theme bundle associated to the comment you were making. And the "..." statement that was omitted. probably some "rule" of thumb often used out of orignial context of discovery, but clearly of interest to not only me as being explicit here. Just to clarify the level of discourse I was asking. It also depends on the intent of poster toward inclusion of other forum curious chess players on lichess. I find that just hinting at an argument and hiding it, is about refusing discussion. or wanting to keep expertise in some private club superposed over lichess. Some people even think rating should have some impact on who can discuss. Some act as if that should be the case. Not necessarily with intent. I would point to habits and competition over-generalized to any activity as probably cause. now i will go back and read your post for the content. thanks. (normal is not always good). There is a lot or room between explanation to atomic elements of a conceptual construction, and the added reference that would have put some meat to explorer for the non-expert reading that part of the post (which i used to not only use the "..." example. Your posts are not as minimalist, only that which I was curious about getting some handle to associate with the rest of the discussion... In order of cryptic "...." comes before yours.

potatothing

#38

Never faced it or played it, I think... so idk, what is the main idea of the Trompowsky

Clearchesser

#39

White wants to trade a piece instead of conducting an attack later with it!

"Goes to bed as Black."

White wants to trade a piece instead of conducting an attack later with it! "Goes to bed as Black."

CM Sarg0n

#40

The question for me was: what fits best to a KID player?

-e6, not quite (but ok)
-g6 bad
-Ne4 and c5 followed by g6 comes closest to a KID (Pirc, Modern, Benoni)

The question for me was: what fits best to a KID player? -e6, not quite (but ok) -g6 bad -Ne4 and c5 followed by g6 comes closest to a KID (Pirc, Modern, Benoni)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.