French vs Trompowsky?

Position #1 is the French Defense / Advance Variation where White scores 51.2%. Position #2 is a variation in the Trompowsky where White scores 41.7% and several GMs analyzing this position claim White has been "refuted". White to move in both cases.

Why is the second position worse for White than the first position? 

In the second position, White's traded off his bad bishop (in the French Advance, trying to get rid of your bad bishop is a typical theme, so "losing the bishop pair" should at least not be a disadvantage in this case), Black's played h6 instead of Nc6 (and h6 does less to aid Black's c5 push), and Black's one tempo down. None of these factors seem to favor Black, and yet Black tends to score more often in the second position.

I admit, if you showed me these positions cold and asked me which black should prefer, I would have said the first. But given your introduction, let's look for things that favor black in the second diagram.

The first thing that I notice is space. The pawn structures of the two diagrams are the same, but since black has less space, trading a pair of minor pieces makes development easier. In the first diagram, black has two minor pieces whose only safe development square is e7. They can't both occupy that square so black has a space issue. In the second diagram, the abscence of the g8 knight alleviates that space issue.

In the second diagram white has traded the c1 bishop. This is technically a bad bishop, but could serve two very useful purposes in this game. The first is guarding b2. Since black has the powerful queen move Qb6 double attacking b2 and d4, it's nice to have a defender of b2 and there is none in diagram 2. Also, even though this bishop is bad, it might easily participate in a kingside attack if black castles kingside (Qg4, Bh6).

That's all I got. :-) 

Thanks, Loomis & AnthonyCG. I guess this is a case of a useful "bad" bishop. I played through some French Advance games and see it plays a role protecting b2 in the opening and d4 & e5 in the middlegame (and occasionally more). Actually, one of the mainlines goes 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4, so Black is willing to wreck his kingside pawns to eliminate White's "bad" bishop and usually White declines. That confirms that getting the trade for free must be better for Black.

 We would need to know how many games those figures (51.2% and 41.7%) are built on before we can really know how much to count on them I would say.

That's a very good question likeforests ! Maybe the statistics should be weighed with the respective strengths of players on the white side and black side.

BlueKnightShade> "We would need to know how many games those figures..."

hicetnunc> "Maybe the statistics should be weighed..."

There are enough games to be statistically significant, but it's not necessary to look too deeply at the statistics because, as I mentioned, 3 GMs weighing in on the position believe White has been refuted in the second position. None of them elaborate so they must feel it's obvious, and even White players reaching this position rarely treat it like a favorable French Defense (they attempt to liquidate the center).

I think Loomis & AnthonyCG are right on the money, that while Black is happy to trade off his "bad bishop" in the French Advance, White usually wants to keep his because it serves some useful purposes. That's also supported by the mainline I posted where White often doesn't trade it off even when it would wreck his opponent's kingside pawn structure.

In the line given, if white takes the knight on h6, black will respond with Qxb2 winning a pawn.  I think this is the main reason in this specific line. 

Also, is the winning percentage really that high for white?   I wonder if that's deceptive, as Nc3 is by far the main line in the french.  Perhaps the advance simply caused black problems for a while, but has since been analysed and better moves found for black.  In fact, i'm not sure i've ever seen a game by GMs in which white wins in the advance french.  I suppose the same could be said of the exchange.  They just never seem to get played, which is disappointing.  

hicetnunc, yep, almost on the dot! This is an interesting position that's been reached many times in master games. It has obvious similarities to the French Advance.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6 5.c3 d5 6.e5 Qd8 7.Nf3 c5

sstteevveenn> In the line given, if white takes the knight on h6, black will respond with Qxb2 winning a pawn.

That's an interesting idea. However--and I grant it's not obvious--7...Qxb2? loses by force if White knows a little theory. So at a high level, White would mostly be contemplating 7.Bxf6 gxh6 8.Qd2. The original idea thus still seems valid, that White often doesn't want to trade off his "bad" bishop even when it would allow him to wreck his opponent's kingside... because it's actually a useful piece in the French Advance, protecting b2 in the opening and holding together the center in the middlegame.

sstteevveenn> Perhaps the advance simply caused black problems for a while, but has since been analysed and better moves found for black.

That's interesting, but I'm not so sure the French Advance is unfavorable for White. Perhaps other variations simply promise more. In the past 5 years, White (2500+) scored +63, =75, -44 from the first position. Svidler, Shirov, & Grischuck have played it. However, it has some negative connotations: "This is a very popular variation amongst juniors, whose natural inclination when faced with a pawn challenge is to push on." -- Ward.

So a GM looking at the second position probably sees two things:  (a) it's more or less a French Advance perhaps isn't the sharpest variation for White (b) White's traded off the bishop pair; that it's a "bad" bishop he's traded off has little meaning since it often proves quite useful in the French Advance. Thanks, sstteevveenn.

It's namely because of the b2 square, white must place his pieces akwardly.  white has to play dxc5 soon to free himself of obligations on d4 and soon after black will play f6 .. the position will be open, suddenly black has two bishops in an open position and white will miss his bishop

hmm I thought that in that line with the pawn on a3 white can win a pawn.  In the line

[1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6]   6.Be2 Nh6? 7.Bxh6 Qxb2?? 8.Be3 Qxa8 9.Qc2 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4

black has no way to save his queen from 0-0 and Nd2

However if black plays 6...cxd4 cxd4 7.Nh6 etc then he can take the pawn.   Also, i thought in the line with the pawn on a3 then black is fine to take the pawn, unless there is some other even more devious tactic, which is entirely possible. 

I'd be interested to know about it if there is, so i have more reason not to take the knight, even though i wouldn't take the knight on h6 anyway.  Giving up the 2 bishops and helping to uncramp black and making protecting d4 a bit awkward, and giving the black rook an important open file, and his pawn on h6 is kinda awkward for white, covering g5.  Not to mention the weirdness of the french/advance where one or both sides might not castle anyway.  

In short, paraphrasing Reti from memory: it is not about whether your pices are developed. It is about whether they are developed in harmony and coordination with each other. Of some relevance to this, no?

{Keres iirc or was it Eugene Znosko-Borovsky?] otoh stressed on a plan from move one so to speak. {i think Eugene stresses on the plan, Paul stressed not to be distracted into deviating from the correct plan once you have found one and proceeded along it..]