Torre vs Tromposky

Trompowsky is d4 Nf6 Bg5, usually with the idea to trade the bishop for the knight, and double white's pawns. Torre is a system (usually same moves against anything) with d4 Nf3 Bg5 c3 e3 Nd2 Bd3. Essentially like the London except the bishop on g5.

Here are the major differences between the Torre and Trompowsky.

First off, by definition, yes, the Torre includes Nf3, the Trompowsky does not.

In the Trompowsky, 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5?! Is not very good.  2...f6 can actually give. Lack a slight advantage, but also the older 2...h6 and 3...c6 works well to at minimum equalize.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5, Black can play 2...d5, 2...c5, 2...Ne4, 2...e6, and then most other moves are considered sub-par.

After 2...Ne4, it is important to know that the knight is not stable.  After say, 3.Bf4 d5, White can kick the Knight with 4.f3.

The Torre is different.  It only works after 1...Nf6/2...e6 or 1...Nf6/2...g6.  It is no good against 1...Nf6/2...d5.  In the Trompowsky with 2...Ne4, we saw White kick the knight away.  Here, 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bg5?! Is not good because of 3...Ne4!  The fact that the White Knight is on f3 blocks the pawn from kicking the knight away on e4.  It also goes to show that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4, the move 3.Nf3 is an error.  White should play 3.Bf4, 3.Bh4, or 3.h4 there.

So after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5, White must go for the London (3.Bf4), an attempt at the Colle (3.e3) keeping in mind anti-colle lines are still possible, forcing a slav (3...Bf5 4.c4 c6 - note that 4.c3 is terrible here.), or else 3.c4, which can lead to a QGA, QGD, or Slav.

That is the main difference between the two.  The White Knight on f3.  What you DO NOT want is the scenario with WNf3, WBg5, BPd5, BNe4.

This is very helpful ThrillerFan and Aanval. Thank you.

Speaking of Tromposky, check out the game Hodgson vs Hebden, 1986. Talk about a rolling initiative. 

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1056242

You need to know a lot more than just the Catalan.

Catalan only works when Black's LSB is blocked behind the pawn chain (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 or 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3).

With the Bishop outside the pawn chain (i.e. Slav), you have to play normal Slav lines, Catalan fails.

Then you need to know something for the KID, Grunfeld, Benoni, Benko, Dutch, etc.

I wouldn't play either of them. Just play a Queen's Gambit. The only alternative I have tried against the Nf6 is Nc3 with the idea of getting a Pirc and pulling off a trap. However, they usually don't play into a Pirc and they play ...e6 or a Veresov. I don't play to well against them so I just stick with what is better

Torre is a solid opening, Trompowsky is a bit of a joke. That is the difference. Torre has the knight developed first.

New In Chess publisher is coming out with a new book on playing the London and Trompowsky. I don't see it listed at New In Chess's website yet but Amazon is showing it. I have wondered why  there were no books on using those two openings together, finally there will be. The London against 1...d5, the Tromp against 1...Nf6, makes sense to me. 

The Fianchetto King's Indian and the Catalan are NOT the same thing.  Both are fine, but compared to each other, they are fresh apples and stale oranges!

Benoni does not get destroyed with e3 and the Dutch is not refuted!

They are not the same setup.  Black's pieces are different.  

Saying the Fianchetto King's Indian is a Catalan is like saying a Queen's Gambit Declined is the same as the French - Black made the same 2 pawn moves.

32 pieces decide the position, not 16!  If the Fianchetto KID is the same as the Catalan, why did the writers of Wojo's Weapons need over half of the first volume to write on the Catalan, the ENTIRE second volume to write on the Fianchetto King's Indian, and half the 3rd volume to write on the Fuanchetto Grunfeld?

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AND NOTHING ALIKE!

Any clown that claims the Catalan, Fianchetto King's Indian, and Fianchetto Grunfeld are anything alike, or that the French and QGD or Slav and Caro or King's Indian and Pirc are at all alike do not understand the game of chess!

The CATALAN, by definition, requires e6 from black with the Bishop behind the pawn chain (outside the pawn chain, you are in a Slav).

The Catalan can only be played against the QGD and Nimzo setups (Nf6/e6).  In the case of the QGD, white should play Nf3 first and wait for ...Nf6 from Black before playing g3.  Against 1...Nf6/2...e6, the move 3.g3 should be played immediately because ...d5 has not been played yet and Black can answer 3.Nf3 with 3...b6.  3.g3 b6 is just bad for Black.

SMH!

No they don't!  QGD - 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7.  Classical French - 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7.  Only difference is the White c and e pawns.  But that difference is HUGE and so you cannot learn one and say you will just use the same ideas for the other.

And the Fianchetto KID does not have the same setup as the catalan.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.Nf3 O-O 6.O-O and then things vary based on Black's choice of 6th move.

But after 4 moves even, White has no c-pawn in the catalan.  C-pawn is still there after 6 moves in the KID.

You will not win the argument.  Fianchetto KID and Catalan are NOTHING alike.  If you study just the catalan, and try to apply catalan ideas against the King's Indian, you will lose because clearly you do not understand that the Catalan, like the French, Colle, QGD, etc, relies on weak light squares on the kingside for Black.  Black's light squares are not weak in the King's Indian.

Apples and Oranges!

Who cares if pfren got dislikes on a post?  His intelligence is far more important than what some bimbos think of him on social media.

So is what we are saying is that pfren is that top of the class lawyer at Harvard while you are the next character performed by Reese Witherspoon from Legally Blonde?

SURE SOUNDS LIKE IT!

You look angry there ChesswithNickolay!

Who is your coach?  Some random bum from the ghetto?

Yo why are you guys spamming so much?

And your comment made me think @ChesswithNickolay - you are correct that the Trompowsky can be good if it transfers into some kind of london, but there are so many traps and winning chances for black aswell in this opening that it makes it a little bit dubious to play unless you know the exact theory perfectly. Like in the Scandinavian - developing queens and bishops before the knights will always be a little bit suspicious as bishops function well from a greater distance out of the starting position aswell whereas knights don't. Bishops can become targets early in the game (Bg5 - Ne4!)

I don't understand why you think the Torre is refutable. As far as I know the Torre is a very messy opening for both sides, for sure very very interesting to play and will lead to complicated positions that are harder to play as black in many cases like after the e4-e5 push by white pinning Nf6. Torre seems very solid and ambitious to me. I think both openings are not ideal, but on the Torre there are actually courses by masters made, whereas I haven't really found anything inspirational for the Trompowsky.

Are you always so grumpy and unfriendly? Also prove it.

Why do others need to prove it?  Simple search solves your problems.  It's called being LAZY!  Why should pfren and others like myself have to do the work for you?

Torre Attack (chessbase.com)

Trompowsky Attack (chessbase.com)

There's your proof!  Now please reserve questions to those which cannot be easily figured out yourself, such as the original question - What are the differences between the Torre and Trompowsky - A legit question which was answered early on.  This BS from you and Nickolay should answer your own question at the start of post 27.

Have you completely lost your mind talking with others like that? Have you had any childhood education at all? Learn some respect dude.

From your own link it says:

"The move led only a shadowy existence right up to the 1980s"

I wonder why that is so, maybe bcs someone like you is too dumb to comprehend what I said. I said it is only playable if you know the exact theory. So of course there is a path to play it, just like with any opening there is. That doesn't mean it is any good under normal circumstances. Everybody is free to give his or her opinion on this. If you only want to hear from masters then create a forum where only masters can post.

Unbelievable.

So one guy prooved something, wow. Unlike in other openings there is TONS of material, literally nobody plays the Trompowsky unless in pointless bullet games.

There is an excellent course on the Trompovsky at Chessable.

https://www.chessable.com/chess-openings/s/Break%20the%20Rules%3A%20Play%20the%20Trompowsky!