Good points made, but I strongly disagree with you about The Torre being undynamic, even though it is the common view about such systems....
p.s. Some Master recently wrote a quite well recieved book entitled "A Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack", and although I haven't read it, it seems to me that "gambit" and "undynamic" don't tend to go together too often .
I agree that the Torre Attack can lead to very dynamic games (after all, it IS called the Torre ATTACK), and in fact the Torre-Lasker game is one of most famous games of all time due to the fact that Torre sacrificed his Queen and then won oodles and scads of material using the "windmill" theme. Having said that, I would be willing to wager a small sum that the Torre Attack is played primarily by "positional" players (e.g. Petrosian played in frequently). What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure the Torre Attack would be the optimal opening for a player in a "must win" situation. I personally like the Torre Attack, but after 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bg5 Be7, I believe that White's opening advantage is on the continuum somewhere between miniscule and non-existent.
But even if Fritz-8-Billion with it's 100-ply search engine thinks that the above position is "=", I still think that a player who regularly employs the Torre Attack will still win the majority of the games based on his or her familiarity with the strategic themes that typically result from the opening.
Re your "P.S.": "Gambit" is (was?) the name of a chess book publishing house. "The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack" does not imply that the TA is a gambit, or even "gambit-like" (gambit-lite?).
As I've said before "positional" doesn't mean "undynamic". And I don't believe petrosian was particularly undynamic/boring either. He had hidden dynamism lurking in many of his games, you just have to find it. And in any case, dispite the level of "positional" players it probably attracts, I believe it can be played by attacking players also just as well, due to the ratio of aggressive-minded lines actually being I'm sure more than positional. One reason I believe many attackers don't even consider playing it is because of the stupid, popular misconceptions that people make about it without making any deep analysis, that at 1st glance it looks solid, but nothing more. Admittedly it's no King's gambit or whatever, but then again what d-pawn opening is?
I again disagree with what you say about it being sub-optimal in a must win situation. Rather I think that it's the perfect weapon in that situation, even more so I believe (OK, I'm not stating this as fact, even I'm not that arrogant 
) than such more well known QP openings such as the QG, which gives Black more counter-chances (arising from a less cramped position from Black's point of view). White can either slowly grind down his opponent, while all the time maintaining a significant strategical edge, or blast him quickly off of the board. And the line you gave is a pretty poor attempt at trying to disprove this: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 Be7 because it's one of the most well known points about the Torre that White will be trying at every possible opportunity to exchange his DSB, so why on earth would Black want to offer his most active Bishop for it? After 4. Bxe7 White not only can just carry on with his usual plans regardless, but he gets from that point on a very active LSB compared to Black's very passive LSB. So in fact, far from Black decreasing White's advantage in the line you gave, he in fact increases it! 
Yes, while you are partly right about "gambit" refering to the book's publishing company, in the review I read about the book the reviewer was actually talking about for the most part how the author dealed with several very important, and prominant gambit Torre lines, which you will be very surprised at I'm sure. So while the Torre of course isn't itself a gambit, there are many recommended offshoots which are. So the book does deal primarily with an aggressive (and nessersary in many lines), gambit-type Torre approach, which makes me quite sure that the company "gambit" have incomporated their brand quite cleverly, and relevantly into the title, as none of their other books I own, or have come accross so far have used actually used their brand name in the title.
Good points made, but I strongly disagree with you about The Torre being undynamic, even though it is the common view about such systems....
p.s. Some Master recently wrote a quite well recieved book entitled "A Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack", and although I haven't read it, it seems to me that "gambit" and "undynamic" don't tend to go together too often .
I agree that the Torre Attack can lead to very dynamic games (after all, it IS called the Torre ATTACK), and in fact the Torre-Lasker game is one of most famous games of all time due to the fact that Torre sacrificed his Queen and then won oodles and scads of material using the "windmill" theme. Having said that, I would be willing to wager a small sum that the Torre Attack is played primarily by "positional" players (e.g. Petrosian played in frequently). What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure the Torre Attack would be the optimal opening for a player in a "must win" situation. I personally like the Torre Attack, but after 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bg5 Be7, I believe that White's opening advantage is on the continuum somewhere between miniscule and non-existent.
But even if Fritz-8-Billion with it's 100-ply search engine thinks that the above position is "=", I still think that a player who regularly employs the Torre Attack will still win the majority of the games based on his or her familiarity with the strategic themes that typically result from the opening.
Re your "P.S.": "Gambit" is (was?) the name of a chess book publishing house. "The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack" does not imply that the TA is a gambit, or even "gambit-like" (gambit-lite?).