Trompowsky Opening ???

No, we are talking about the viability of the Trompowsky with 2... g6, that has been the topic of conversation the entire time. No one anywhere is debating that you can play 2... d5 and transpose into a QGD or KID / slav like position. But that also entails learning a variety of other positions, including the Veresov, and so the reason to do that, you argue, is to avoid 2... g6. You claimed 2... g6 is not viable because after 3. Bxf6 it can't be played like a Grunfeld or KID. My point is there is no need for avoiding 2... g6, because 3. Bxf6 is not even a very good move, leela loves multiple lines here for black and evaluates it as very close to equal, there is a strong and interesting line with 4... b6 you can play, a line which is neither a Grunfeld nor a KID but it's already almost equalized and so that doesn't matter very much.

You actually cannot stand by that claim because you have never before now made that claim, the conversation has always been about the viability of 2... g6 and following up with 4... b6. Never has anyone ever suggested anywhere that you should play b6 in the Grunfeld or some sideline in the KID. Which makes sense, because if you're already in the KID you would just follow that theory, there's no need to even discuss the viability of b6 or any move that isn't KID theory in that case.

The Trompowsky is trying to ruin backs attempts of playing a KID or Grunfeld.

I have been saying playing 2...g6 isn’t viable for Black if they plan on aiming for KID or Grunfeld.

The position you are showing is proving my point.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 g6 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. c4 b6

The above line isn’t a KID or Grunfeld position.
This proves my point. It’s some other random line.

People can play it, but that isn’t the discussion.

What I have been showing you is how Black can try to reach Grunfeld position.

The position will be a Grunfeld position similar to the 5.Bg5 lines. It’s a transposition into another common Grunfeld line.

As we can see above your entire point is and always has been that the line 2... g6 3. Bxf6 exf6 is a bad line and should be avoided. Not because it isn't a Grunfeld or a KID, but in your words the engine eval is "all a lie though.". You then go on a long explanation stating that, because you can't play the position like a Grunfeld or KID, the position is unplayable. My point is that this is false, the line 2... g6 3. Bxf6 is perfectly fine, you simply should not play it like a Grunfeld or KID since it isn't one.

Firstly White can play 2... d5 3. Bxf6 regardless, that's not a Grunfeld either, so this new point of yours is also nonsense and not being proven by anything here. And after 2... d5 the move 3. Bxf6 is the most common move.

2... g6 can transpose to a similar KID or Grunfeld style position too, the entire point is arbitrary.

Btw, the line you keep pointing to is alot more like a QGD or g6 slav, you do not play Nbd7 early in the Grunfeld and rarely will you ever reach this position. It's not even worth the effort trying to transpose here.

Similarly you're only going to reach this position from the Trompowsky after 2... d5 like 4% of the time.

Rather than trying so hard to transpose and being forced to learn other QGD and queens pawn type lines (including the entire richter veresov) to play 2... d5 it'd much better to just find a good Trompowsky line and play it.

As a g6 player you'd be much better off playing g6 in the Trompowsky here and learning some lines in the Pirc.

It's an okay opening

@Post #24

You have completely misinterpreted everything I have said.

You have also added words into my text which I never said.

Look at your below statement:

As we can see above your entire point is and always has been that the line 2... g6 3. Bxf6 exf6 is a bad line and should be avoided. Not because it isn't a Grunfeld or a KID, but in your words the engine eval is "all a lie though.".

The part in green is what I said.

The part in red is what you added randomly to the text.

Why?

I never said the text in red.

I have been talking about Grunfeld & KID.

Actually, I will quote your exact words:

”No, we are talking about the viability of the Trompowsky with 2... g6, that has been the topic of conversation the entire time.”

Yes, but Why does a Chess player play 2…g6?

Does a Chess player play 2…g6 with the hopes of playing Queen Indian Defense? Nimzo? Queen Gambit Declined?

The reason a player plays g6 is because they are trying to play a G6 line and the 2 most common lines which spawn from the above position is Grunfeld & KID.

Thus, I began talking about the Grunfeld & KID.

I didn’t start talking about Grunfeld & KID randomly!

It is the logical progression of the conversation.

We are saying if g6 is viable, but in order to understand if it is viable we have to understand why a person is actually playing the move to begin with.

A person would play the move because their intention would be to play Gruenfeld or KID.

At which point, I told you playing 2…g6 would be bad.

It is bad because it allows white to play 3.Bxf6.

The Bishop trade is harmful to the Grunfeld & KID lines which are the openings a chess player is intending to play. 
————————

I explained in a comment how Black should play in order to try and safely get into Gruenfeld or KID. Their are no guarantees they will get into 1 of those lines, but they will have better shot trying to get into those lines in a fine position if they do an alternative move order.

@Post #24 - In regard to Second Half of your post

Look at the below lines on a Database:

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 g6 3. Bxf6

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 d5 3. Bxf6

The Database I use says the following:

If Black plays 2…g6, white has 80% Chance of playing 3.Bxf6

If Black plays 2…d5, white has 43% Chance of playing 3. Bxf6

—————————

So if a player is playing with the Black pieces and wants to play Gruenfeld.

What continuation do you think gives them better chance to actually play Gruenfeld?

Black can’t control what White does.

Black can only give themselves the best possible chance which would be 2…d5.

If white takes the Knight with 3.Bxf6, Than so be it at least Black tried!

——————

If white doesn’t take the Knight with 3.e3, Than Black has the opportunity to get into a Gruenfeld.

The above position is the same position a player reaches in the 3 Knights Grunfeld.

Do you disagree with above position being a Gruenfeld?

If White takes d5 pawn with c4 pawn, It is the Exchange variation.

Most people know that line, but it isn’t the only line white can play against Gruenfeld.

White can also play Nf3 which is 3 Knights Variation.

In the above position, White has several moves they can play.

A few years ago, 5.Qb3 was extremely popular.

It is Gruenfeld - Russian Variation.

————

The move 5.cxd5 is also popular in this position. 
After 5…Nxd5, white can play e4 which would transpose line back into the Exchange line

or white can play Bd2 which is a sneaky little sideline some players like to play.

———

The other main move is 5.Bg5.

The line is named the Gruenfeld - 3 Knights variation, Petrosian System

I already explained Black has 3 moves in this position which they can play.

Ne4, dxc4, or c6

You could call c6 a sideline, but the position is fine for Black.