Thoughts on Trompowsky Attack

@Sarg0n, #3: "Recently I tried 2. … g6, but 3. Bxf6! is a clear plus for White."

Really? Can you post your game? Or some further thoughts.

I don't think there's any problem with 2...g6 at all because there's no way to stop ...f5:
1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 g6 3. Bxf6 exf6
- 4. e4 Bg7 5. Bd3 d5 6. exd5 Qxd5 7. Nf3 O-O 8. O-O f5
- 4. e3 d6 5. Nf3 f5
I don't think white has any clear plus here at all.
I don't think white has a clear plus in most lines because either 2...e6 3. e4 h6 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 or 2... d5 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. e3 Be6 are perfectly fine for black.
I played 2...e6 (Karpov's choice) many many times and 2...g6 many many time and even 2...d5 (Alekhine's choice) a number of times and I have never had any problems in either one and I actually think 2...g6 is great.

putting pressure on the black center pawns possibilities of advance. To avoid that future possible pin. black can threaten the B with another move (without other piece dev) accumulating tempo on itself, very early, but that is ok as it would just be trading it with the threatened non-supported piece. (look ma, no SAN! they all know which chess unit i refer to).

And it would have some window of time in the center without being under direct threat.

But during that time, B could go put more pressure on e5, so still affecting the black pawn center activity, while black has to use some of that knight advance, where many choices of next white moves are likely to theaten it, while at the same time developping.

How bad is that story without any tit for tat contingency SAN. anybody lost? Are these valuable arguments. yes there are in hind-sight. does that mean that they could not be part of the pre-move thinking.

Tempo, is very basic. development too. so faith needed. I think most people would understand augmenting piece activity toward the other side, augmenting own chess mess mutual interactions having more than one piece or men able to join a future not yet calculable *potential* set of combinations.

Any counter thoughts. preferably with explicit knowledge so that we can all weight the pros and cons, and not rely on secrets.

Also, I don't find anything in my arguments that would go against having a intuitive internal equivalent of those notions of tempo, and pressure on opponent plan potential. I may not have covered the other case. the black accept the potential pin.

and then what. probably another weakness if B takes N and p take B, double pawn** (bad, I accept that for the time being but don't have internal map of when that would really become a nuisance, rating oblige).

or the queen early. OK another guideline without context. but do not panic. that one too can be dissected into components that are objective and detectable by any conscious player, once aware of their existence (bypassing random exploration to some extent, or guiding its envelope to most informative experience). Let's see if we can avoid justifying with such divine source tenet.
why would queen take B be actually too early in this position. well. i have written enough. that could be its own thread. deconstructing the "no early queen", but the conclusion would not be the nihilist one, at least I would fight against it.

e6 followed by c5 used to be my main weapon:

@Sarg0n Wow, 2...e6 followed by 3... c5 seems entirely unnecessary to me but I'm aware this style of complexity attracts some people.
I don't seem to like ...c5 continuations in many different lines and that includes the Nimzo-Indian, Benoni, etc.
Just not my style.
The 3 replies I gave a few posts ago are all good, solid, adopted by world champions and follow a thematic guidline with a somewhat nullifying approach.
To each his own.

#14 thanks for putting one board on this thread. Made me realize that I considered B taking N, while it is better to keep it there, to stay with my first hypothesis. the pin. keeping B still in the cards. I did not exhaust all the reponses. Just wanted to point at the non SAN arguments possible. as forces that can be in play behind the moves (I may not be doing a good job though, but I will keep trying). position features tell a story behind the move kinetics mere description as SAN, which does not explain much by itself.

Would you be able to explain why your weapon is good with positional arguments? I am curious. or anyone could?

i like 2... Ne4 or 2... c6 (or even 2...d5). After 2... c6, white has to avoid 3. e3?? (and i often play c6 for that reason tho its a sound line regardless). 2... Ne4 is a bit more active.

@Sarg0n Somewhat like Karpov-Browne (San Antonio 1972).

I really don't like this particular setup. Although I play the exf6 CK plus I am a fan of the two Bishops but this feels simply bad. And they know it. Probably every video on the T. starts with: "If they play 2. ... g6 you just swap and you are fine because of ... ". Period.

@Sarg0n I mean this in the most friendly way possible but you will have to prove to me what is that "because".
I've been playing 2...g6 for what is probably 20 years and have found close to zero faults in it.
I'm not saying it's my main defence. The one I played the most is 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 e6 3. e4 h6 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 (Karpov's favourite).
It suits my style.
I used to play the Alekhine so I'm well versed in dealing with overly advanced pawns and while it is a tad slow the endgame is fine.