anti-QxB move? chess960? what?
Chess960 = Fischer's random chess where figures are randomly permuted on 1st and 8th horizontal lines in the initial position.
QxB-opening is the pawn move, opening the way both to the queen and 1 of bishops ; 1.e4 in standard chess. It's always one of best moves.
Trompowsky attack vs Nimzo defence :
2...e6 is a common move here
QxB usually represents Queen takes Bishop.
I do not see the connection with chess960
If in a chess960 game the queen is separated by 1 square from 1 of bishops, I call it QXB-game where X stands for K,R,B or N (call it otherwise if U wish). In such games, the move of X-pawn, located between Q and B, is always one of best moves (pliz check with any game engine if U don't trust me
). The standard chess is a QKB-game and 1.e4 is exactly that magical pawn's move.
Here's an example of Trompowsky attack in RBNQKNBR Fischer's game where bishops are transposed with knights.
1.c4 is that mysterious QXB-pawn's move here instead of 1.e4 in standard chess.
Trompowsky counter-attacks in Queen's pawn and Vienna games :
The Trompowsky is the opening you presented in post #1. None of the others is the Tromp. Only the specific moves 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 define the Trompowsky, although some transpositions are possible. It has nothing to do with the similar Bishop moves you present in different positions. As a classical chess opening, it has no bearing or application upon Chess960 or any other variant.
U present here an extremely dogmatic viewpoint. Similar bishop moves can be called Trompowsky, it's a very common practice, just open "book openings" here to convince yourself. So your statements are essentially wrong, sorry.
The idea of Trompowsky is the immediate (on the 2nd move) bishop's attack on the knight blocking the advance of (Q,B)-pawn in my terminology (which is e-pawn in standard chess). Similar situations are very numerous in Fischer's games, it's as clear as the fact that the sky is blue.
No, similar Bishop moves are not called the Trompowsky. Neither is 1.d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 called "Ruy Lopez."
No, similar Bishop moves are not called the Trompowsky.
Actually, I don't care how it's called (pliz use any other name if U wish); the idea of Trompowsky is clear and present in many situations, that's my point.
Neither is 1.d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 called "Ruy Lopez."
Nope, here Bg5 is played on the 3rd move, that's the difference! Ruy Lopez can be called bishop's attack in 2 knights game. Believe me, I'll call any similar opening (there are plenty too) "Ruy Lopez variation" without any hesitation.
There is this:
Levitsky Attack, or pseudo-Tromp. The White is pinning the ghost of the Knight on f6.
Levitsky Attack, or pseudo-Tromp. The White is pinning the ghost of the Knight on f6.
U know yourself that it's not similar.
I am guessing that Levitsky had a bit to drink and wanted to play the Tromp so much that he didn't notice that there was no Knight on f6.
Atos : LoL
Here's an other example of drunk Levitzky attack hahaha. I'd say King's pawn game : Levitzky variation
Atos : okay, thanx for this useful suggestion! I'll call Levitzky attack any pawn's opening where a bishop attacks a knight's ghost on the second move!
The so-called Trompowsky attack is quite an universal opening in many chess960 games. Here's its standard prototype
Easy ananysis : 1...Nf6 is an anti-QXB pawn's move (2.e4), so the Trompowsky attack is anti-anti-QXB.