Trompowsky

I was wondering why more people don’t play the Trompowski much. It’s a perfectly sound opening for white with lots of imbalances and great attacking chances. As a bonus, it leads to positions that are unusual that black is likely to be unfamiliar with.

Thoughts? Anyone think it’s bad?

Why do u think its not played much?

Many material/video/books were made since several years to advocate Trompovsky!

It's totally playable and a very good weapons IMO.

Oh, I probably see 100 Londons for every 1 Trompowsky, and it’s not better. I guess it’s just not fashionable.

I bet if Magnus were to play it in an important match, you’d see a lot more of it.

 

He did play it in a major tournament.

In the 2016 World Championship match, which took place in the United States, just days after the scam of the century, because "Tromp" sounds close to the name of the winner of the SOTC, Carlsen played the Trompowsky in round 1.  It resulted in a draw as the only decisive games were Rounds 8 and 10.

 

Probably one reason you never see it is laziness.  Once in a real blue moon, you will see a GM play the London System.  Nobody at that level makes it their main opening for White because it creates ZERO advantage for White.

 

But then you have the 1600 player.  Why are they 1600?  It could be a number of reasons:

1) Started chess late in life

2) Limited mental capacity for medical reasons, such as a stroke, aneurysm, down syndrome, or a myriad of other possibilities.  Keep in mind, to master chess, you need better than average mental capacity.

3) Career takes up too much time.

4) The player truly does have the potential to be much stronger, but they are too lazy to put in the work, and since they think the London is playable against EVERYTHING, that they take that short cut.  What many fail to realize is the London System is actually a slight advantage for Black if he plays the Modern Defense.

 

With the number of of players in category 4 out numbering 1, 2, and 3 combined, let's look at another factor from a different angle.

 

Let's assume we have a lazy chess player.  He is looking for some canned system that he can play against anything.

 

The London System can be played against anything except the Modern, and many perceive it to be fine against the Modern even though it is not.

The Trompowsky is only playable against 1...Nf6.  2.Bg5 can be played against the Dutch, but it is not a tromp and plays nothing like a Tromp.

 

So which will the lazy guy choose?  An opening that he perceives as playable against everything?  Or an opening only playable against 1...Nf6?

 

That is also why the Colle System is not that popular either.  It only works when Black has entombed his Bishop with ...e6.  1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 (if 3...Bf5 or 3...Bg4, white has nothing but 4.c4, likely transposing to a Slow Slav) 4.Bd3.

That is also why the Torre is less popular as it does not work against 1.d4 d5 Nf3 Nf6 (or 1...Nf6 and 2...d5) as 3.Bg5 Ne4 is good for Black.

 

For about 6 months to a year, maybe 2 to 3 years ago, I was playing the Colle/Slow Slav and Torre, using each when appropriate, playing them like they should be played and not as a lazy man's way out.

 

That is why you see the London a lot.

 

You face a Torre, Trompowsky, or Colle, there is a far stronger chance that White actually knows what they are doing than if you face the London System or Stonewall attack via 1.d4 and 2.e3 (again, end up in a Stonewall via 1.f4 and they are more likely to know what they are doing and know when the Stonewall is actually good as opposed to laziness.

 

KIA via 1.e4 vs KIA vs 1.Nf3 is another.  The 1.e4 KIA player is more likely to know what he is doing.

I buy the laziness argument, though I don’t think it’s fair to call it laziness. It’s just easy for lower-rated players to understand and play. Although to be fair, Carlsen plays the London way more than the Trompowsky. He played it against Kramnik last year in the finals of the World Blitz Championship.

I always play an early c5 against the London, especially if they play an early Bf4. If they insist upon continuing with the London, they are usually just worse since they are basically playing badly against a Benoni setup.

indeed. The main message to be conveyed is that, you don't want to play every hand the same way, the Tromp is a very good weapon but common sense is not to put all your eggs in one basket! Mix it up, don't become soo predictable. Learn other openings to enhance your skillset all the while holding your ace in your back pocket. Improving ones experience & prowess improves one's opening skill with any opening. Facts. Other than that, don't worry about why others aren't playing the Tromp...just worry about being stuck in a rut not having any other opening weapons in your toolshed. Level up! 😉

Someone has played Trompowsky against me in one of my current daily games. I was looking at some lines and there is some crazy stuff. 

What the chuff is going on here for example? (This isn't the line our game has gone down). Of the 700+ games I have played with 1.d4 Nf6 Trompowsky has been played against me less than 30 times. 

That’s still theory, I believe. White gives up the rook but basically traps the queen and has great initiative.

I was looking at the opening explorer and the London has like a 34% win rate as white and the Trompowsky a 43%. The poison pawn variation, which black almost always goes for, has a 56% win rate as white! Most of the theoretical lines have great win %s for white. That’s why its lack of use just surprised me since you can play it often since Nf6 is by far the most common reply to 1.d4. It’s played more than twice as often as d5.

It’s like it’s a great secret weapon that nobody uses. My theory is that it has a funny name and people don’t play openings with funny names. Now the dragon sounds cool. It has a crap win%, but dragons are cool! I’m only half joking.

I score very well against the Tromp with 2...Ne4

2.Ne4 is the main line and still has a 44% win rate for white.

The Trompowsky is not played much because it is a sharp opening, and most 1. d4 players play 1. d4 to avoid sharp openings.  It's a good opening, and especially good to use against 1. d4 players who are expecting a quiet game.

Super-GMs this day are not lazy, of course, but they are fearful.  In sharp openings, the odds are high that someone will lose badly, and very few high-level players have confidence they can outwit their opponents through heavy, complex tactics (though Anand in particular really should have such confidence).

Many very good openings are not played at high levels, and that's the #1 reason why.

@ThrillerFan - the vast majority of non-rising 1600 players fall into category #4.  They think their play, whether it's the opening, their tactics, or their endgames is "good enough".  The notion that age is limiting advancement doesn't hold up in my view.  A friend of mine won his first-ever State Championship while approaching the age of 70.

The club environment is important though - if no one is pushing others to improve, everyone's game tends to be stale.  Of course, in order to improve one's tactical depth, you need to expose yourself to sharp positions where one false move loses the game.

In that respect, perhaps "laziness" is not the right term, but rather "fear of losing badly/quickly".

 

Your friend is the exception, not the rule.

Any "old" person can have a good event.  I live in Southern North Carolina, about 10 to 20 minutes from the state line and so I have played in many South Carolina events, and a guy named Klaus Police has won the state title in SC in his late 70s.

 

State titles are not "all that".  Often times the top player to show up is 2200, and some state championships allow out of staters to play for the money, but the title goes to the top resident of that state.  That said, I can almost guarantee you that this person you say is almost 70 that won the state title did not start playing in his 60s.  The guy I speak of in South Carolina played for decades, and was over 2400 at one point, but the last 20 years he has constantly banged on his 2200 floor.

The age reference is not saying you cannot win a state title at 65 if you have played for 40 years.  What it is saying is that age is relative to mental capacity, and when you start matters.

 

If you start at 4, you could be the next Kasparov or Carlsen.  If you wait to start until you are 20, sure you can still be a master, maybe even an IM, but you will not be top 10 in the world.  Start at 30, again, you might reach master, win a state title, but IM is likely out of reach.  Start at an age like 66, not even knowing what an X-ray or Skewer is until you reach retirement age and there is a good chance you never surpass 1800.

 

Now you take someone that started at an early age, and he is now 66, he will not suddenly fall all the way down to 1800, but if he peaked at say, 2318 at age 36, he is probably no stronger than 2200 at age 66.

 

Hope this clarifies the age reference.  Bet if you surveyed 50 people that read their first chess book at 60 or higher that 90 percent of them never reach 2000.