I was trampled in the Trompowski

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1


    And this is how it all went... 

    The last Belgian league game - now 4 out of 6 in the league, against opposition averaging 2024 FIDE. 

    You need to lose a game like that from time to time... it opens your mind!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #2


    If you are going to play exf, I would play a lot more solidly.

    c6, bishops on d6 and e6, O-O, Qb6 (only if white is playing aggressively).  f5 later, only if white is pushing for the e4 break.

    If you want a more aggressive game (looks like you do), try gxf instead.  This will justify your ambitious play a bit more, and it's just as devastating. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #3


    You are right - I like aggressive games... however I was shy of ...gf because I commit too early to breakage of my K-side structure...

    However, it seems like this specific idea which I played, doesn't work against correct white play - and the best I can get is a rather dull draw. 


    (hmmm... now that I think about it again, I'm not so convinced... look at that long variation that we analyzed up to move 20... in that final position, after the black b pawn is exchanged for the white a pawn, his c3 pawn is rather weak and pretty attackable - and if it falls, my c4 pawn is a real monster!)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #4


    I think 2..d5 is the best response to the Trompowsky, but it doesn't yield incredible dynamic play or anything.  It's quite symmetrical.  gxf would bring the game alive, but 2.. Ne4 would even more so if that's the kind of position you are trying to get.  You were doing fine in the game, just played a very speculative and commital pawn move and overlooked some invasion moves.  It happens.  It could have been avoided altogether if you took a moment to O-O somewhere.

    Edit: meant Ne4

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #5


    If you really want to go for the win against the Trompowsky i only see 2 options: Ne4 followed by c5 or c5 inmediatly(i prefer the later). 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #6


    Interesting... and takes some study :-)

    You may want to know, that many of my wins in serious chess - just like Carlsen's - come exactly from those symmetric, 'dry' positions where Qs go off before move 12... for some reason people generally lose their heads against me in these situations - or maybe I just understand them better. 

    This game was the exception :-)

    However your ideas are interesting and certainly deserve more serious study on my part. 

    Specifically, after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 Ne4 3. Bf4(h4) c5, I'm uneasy about black's Nd2 move - what to do? To exchange Ns and lose a tempo? To retreat to f6 and lose two tempi? To stay on e4, allow him to exchange, and get a weird pawn on e4? That later may make me play ...f5 with a rigid structure? I don't really have the strategical answers to these questions...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #7


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #8



    Looks like you've posted my game, added some computer lines to it at some points, and then just substituted another computer line for the game continuation. And the idea is?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #9


    Nd2 doesn't seem like a big problem. I guess that Nxd2 Nxd2 cxd4 will win a few tempo as Nf3 is answered by d6.

    Winning in Carlsen/Karpovian style doesn't mean that you went for the win in the most ambitious ways. In a symmetrical structure it's very difficult to win with sensible moves by both sides as it doesn't require so much calculation. If you add inbalances to the structure (hanging pawns, Isolani, and other non-symmetrical structures) gives much more complications and it usually ends in not sharing the point. For instance, in the caro-kann slav exchange a weak move usually leads to a slight disadvantage while in the Taimanov attack(Benoni) a weak move from either side leads to having to withstand a strong attack.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #10


    6...c4 with ideas on the queenside is slow, so to me really unambitious, and at least at first doesn't seem to make sense due to your two bishops.

    And actually, with the doubled pawns, the play for black seems nonexistent.

    "it was good enough for a draw, not more." my thoughts exactly.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #11


    <Kytos> I should probably try this sometime on blitz and see what comes out of it... I generally tend to 'experience' before I go and 'study'. 

    <Waffllemaster> Well, I'm not one hundred percent convinced that the line is utterly devoid of winning chances...

    Of course it isn't anything like what Morozevich or Ivanchuk would go for... but there are many ways to skin a cat. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #12


    Mickey Adams turned the Trompowsky into a formidable weapon in the 90's.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #13


    This is what I like against it.

    Not saying black is better there, or anything. Just put it out there as a unbalanced game, and tell my opponent "May the best player win!"

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #14


    <Varelse> every legitimate (even half-legitiate) opening where you understand the ideas better than your opponent and can push them through over the board, is a formidable weapon! :-)

    Your setup is definitely interesting. I suppose that black will choose which way to castle according to white' further play. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #15


    They are not computer lines, i also fixed the starter one.

    But g5 in the main-line is not good i think.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #16


    You can say that again :-)

    This move caused my loss directly. 

Back to Top

Post your reply: