How to counteract the Trompowsky Attack?

Godlike, I think the line you gave is a very good defense for Black!

I think Peter Well's book is great at explaining the positional ideas in various tromp systems. Theory has moved on a bit and some of the lines are not so great for white, but of course this is true because otherwise the top GMs would regularly play Bg5. Nevertheless, it is very interesting and instructive.

Yeah refuting white on the second move, when he has just developed a peice, good luck with that. Nowdays prefer 2...d5 and a later c5. Since 3BxN gxf6 isn't that good for white, they now try 3e3.

*sigh*

Just to make myself perfectly clear:

I have not refuted the Tromp, and neither claimed it. I just like the position Black is in after 2...Ne5, and encourage players that have no idea of what to do to try it.

I have never lost in a way that can be attributed to the opening with that line, and thus see no reason to change it. But that may well be due to the fact that only subpar players have chosen to play it against me, and only a few times.

I'd ask what's the idea of Bg5 ? Well, the reason for Nf6 was to prevent white from building a powerful center with e4 after d4.

Thus e4 would perhaps be possible for white after exchanging the knight in f6.

To prevent e4 by white, I would then consider d5 or, why not, b6 and Bb7, but I'd like to read comments from strong players.

Nobody mentions my favorite line 3..c5 yet hmm?

I agree with aln67

I love the move 2...d5.

It helps control e4 + it makes it possible for black to play Nbd7 if needed!

In fact, I have a crushing score against players who try to play the Veresov Attack.

I have noticed they often use the Trompowsky move order.

The set up I play is called Queen Pawn Game/Veresov Attack/Two Knights System/Gruenfeld Defense

I have a crushing score as black.

Even databases give black with a crushing score.

I honestly don't know why they use the Trompowsky Attack move order.

However, I have noticed they like doing it a lot.

Incase anyone is wondering.

The normal move order of the Veresov Attack is below:

It goes like that most times.

Maybe white has some sort of sneaky plan when using the trompowsky attack move order.

I honestly don't know.

If I was to guess my guess would be that maybe they play the bishop to g5 at move 2 so that they can delay the knight from going to c3.

By delaying the knight from going to c3 they keep there C pawn flexible?

Also maybe the idea they have is to play e4 like aln67 has said.

If black plays 2...d5 it does stop e4 from coming so maybe that is why they follow up with 3.Nc3 to try and support it some more.

I do not play bullet games. I did lost against it in blitz, but never because of the opening; and I have a +2 -0 =0 record against it in "serious" (>15 min/player), offline chess but it just means is that few strong people play it in serious games.

Cox's recommendation is 2...e6 which fits well with Nimzo, e6 line players.

If comfortable with the french can play 1...e6 and avoid trop entirely.

Simply false.

As anyone can see from the quote that jengaias produced, I called attention to possibilities without writing any attempt to convince to buy.

I have read the agruement between:   Ylblai2 & Jengaias

I can safely conclude they both have interesting points.

The Saint vs The Sinner.

It really is a biblical struggle.

All over the Trompowsky Attack.

It doesn't surpise me at all.

The Trompowsky Attack is obviously an evil line to begin with.

It uses the Dark bishop not the Light bishop.

Anyone can decide for themselves whether or not my words or yours are a better description of a post, beginning with: "Perhaps one of these would be helpful: ..."

No. I do use chesscafe a lot because of the availability of a fairly large and well organized library of reviews.

You will have to check that for yourself. I am not going to search for an unidentified NewInChess page. However, here is a chesscafe quote that might be of some interest: "... most players rated more than 1700-1800 will not find much of interest in [the 2007 book, Chess Opening Essentials - Volume 1: The Complete 1. e4 by Djuric, Komarov, and Pantaleoni], while those rated below will find it flawed, full of holes, and superficial. I really cannot think of a group who could benefit very much from reading this book." I'll leave it to you to identify the publisher of the book.

Probably. I do not even know what it means to have a game "running".

I played two games seven days ago.

About 15.

In the other topic, about 3 weeks ago, I referred to about 13 games in the previous 12 months.

Probably. I do not even know what it means to be in a group.

That sounds at least approximately correct. I am not going to bother to check the exact details.

For about three weeks, I have been participating in a discussion of the pros and cons related to studying the Ruy Lopez.

That is one of my activities. I do also participate in some discussions about improvement. From time to time, I make chess history contributions. 

I do not feel qualified to have a personal opinion about a book like Grandmaster Repertoire 11: Beating 1 d4 Sidelines by Boris Avrukh. As I indicated about 3 weeks ago, in the other topic, I do think it is of some value to identify books "that might have content related to the interest of this or that person making a post."

I try (not always successfully) to identify relevant books that have received some sort of positive comment.

Apart from what I have said above, I would suggest that you take a look at one of the contributions to that other topic about three weeks ago.

"This site claims more than 13 million members.* Fewer than 2 million play Daily Chess. Fewer than 2 million play blitz. It's a pretty fair guess that a lot of members are here only for the forums."

Now, perhaps you can demonstrate the degree to which YOU are willing to answer questions. Remember this from about three weeks ago?

"These guys have the same distributor ,they are practically employees of the same company"

Would you want us to take that as an indication of the general quality of your thinking? Was there any other reason for us to see this about three weeks ago?

"... guess who works for Batsford.I will give you a hint , starts from N ends to unn. ..."

How about this?

"Something that most don't realise is that chess publishing industry is one of the biggest publishing industries."

About three weeks ago, in the other topic, I raised the question of whether or not there is something of a difference between

"one of the biggest sport or game publishing industries"

and "one of the biggest publishing industries". I didn't notice you addressing that question. Is that going to continue?

Do you have any argument that the author was not simply expressing his sincere belief that "New In Chess remains the best chess magazine in print"?

Who did these average computations and what were the actual numbers? In any event, wouldn't better books have a higher probability of having higher prices and more praise at the same time?

Again, previously we saw:

"These guys have the same distributor ,they are practically employees of the same company"

Are you going to tell us whether or not you would want people to take that as an indication of the general quality of your thinking? Are you going to tell us whether or not there was any other reason for us to see this about three weeks ago?

"... guess who works for Batsford.I will give you a hint , starts from N ends to unn. ..."

You might pause to consider whether or not "better" is a rather complicated idea.

"Just because a book contains lots of information that you don't know, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development." - Dan Heisman (2001)

Also, for a publisher, the issue is not what book would actually be better for a possible buyer. The issue is what the possible buyer will think. Do you see non-NewInChess publishers rushing to try to make money selling lots of copies of Pachman, Kotov, and Keres writings?

Would you want people to take that as an indication of the general quality of your thinking?

It has previously been pointed out to you that for about three weeks, I have been participating in a discussion of the pros and cons related to studying the Ruy Lopez, and that I participate in some other discussions related to improvement. Is it your intention to persist in ignoring such things? And what about that false statement that I do not play chess?

Perhaps it is "a possibility" that you will win the lottery this year. Of course, it is a somewhat different question as whether or not there is evidence supporting that "possibility". Are you ever going to explain how this chesscafe quote fits into your thinking?

"... most players rated more than 1700-1800 will not find much of interest in [the 2007 book, Chess Opening Essentials - Volume 1: The Complete 1. e4 by Djuric, Komarov, and Pantaleoni], while those rated below will find it flawed, full of holes, and superficial. I really cannot think of a group who could benefit very much from reading this book."

Who said that the reviews should "be considered entirely objective"? Now, if it were the case that chesscafe reviews were widely seen as a serious distortion of the truth, one would have to wonder why it would be a benefit to NewInChess to have a "page especially made for chesscafe recommendations".

It has been pointed out to you that my habit is to call attention to possibilities. Of course, there is nothing to stop you from paying about as much attention to that as you pay to other matters.

There is nothing wrong with you giving your opinion of this or that book, but, if you resume making comments about who works for whom and so on, it might well seem appropriate to again bring up past questions and the degree to which you have enthusiasm to answer them.

Ignoring my chess-improvement posts is not going to cause them to disappear.

About three weeks ago, it was attempted to point out to you that I had made no claim about having read the suggested books.

Certainly no book like, for example, Grandmaster Repertoire 11: Beating 1 d4 Sidelines by Boris Avrukh. Nevertheless, I feel that I can reliably note that it has Tromposky-related material. I have read some things like Horowitz books all the way through, and, of course, many other things partially, but I don't play very often.

Why is there any doubt about this? I have already told you that I do not even know what it means to be in a group.

My ~3 week participation in the Ruy Lopez discussion is easily visible, but that doesn't force you to take notice.

I can not help you with fantasy.

LOL

This forum sure has gotten interesting indeed!

Jengaias believes ylblai2 is working for a secret agent!

I don't know if this is true.

However, I have to admit it is pretty funny.

Operation Code: Book Sale!

LOL

This is ylblai2's only chance to tell the truth.