Ok, I'm a decent enough player, rated between 2190 -2250 FIDE for the past 5 to 6 years. I take my chess seriously and do well in most tournaments.

The thing is, I really like simple d-pawn openings. In particular the Torre and Trompowsky. I have no particular love for the Colle, London or Veresov, although I would consider the last two.

My trouble is mainly ideological - even though I like, understand, and feel comfortable, playing the Tromp/Torre, I have always limited my use of them (often just for a brief change of scenery, or specific opponent) and forced myself to play more mainstream openings. Its these openings that I play in any big tournament.

So, what I'm wondering is, and I ask this in knowledge that we know there are more testing openings out there and we are playing sound, but ultimately limited, variations......how do d-pawn specials players justify what they are doing? I want to be taken seriously, yet also to take myself seriously. I don't want to play deliberately substandard moves, yet I do want to play openings I'm comfortable with. I'm holding two contradictory thoughts in my head.

Must we, as d-pawn special players, adopt some kind of chess doublethink?

It troubles me, it really does.  :-/

I was 'hooked' on d-pawn specials years ago, but now I play them only rarely.

I think most people will develop faster if they learn about all the different Indians and Queen's Gambits, but as part of a wider repertoire d-pawn specials are fine.

Chess is a draw, and our opponent must make mistakes for us to win. Against some opponents and in some tournament situations, "specials" are more likely to induce that, even though theoretically Black should equalise more quickly than in a main line. So you can keep a theoretical ideal of playing the best moves, while justifying the occasional sideline with "play the man, not the board" thinking! If I always play the lines I think are absolutely best there's a tradeoff since I also become very predictable.

"System" openings like the London, Colle and Torre are useful against aggressive opponents, when you don't have time to prepare, or on tired days. But even they must be played concretely with thought, not on auto-pilot.

Quote:

But even they must be played concretely with thought, not on auto-pilot.

Absolutely, I don't play the Tromp/Torre on autopilot; I play them because of the resulting positions. I've studied the ChessPub anlayses on these variations and done a lot of my own research on the Torre King's Indian in particular. I'm very much interested in playing these openings with an idea of finding the best moves within them rather than simply as a way of avoiding theory for its own sake. These openings are often used for that reason and are discredited as a result.

winawer77 wrote on 07/18/10 at 22:08:29:

Quote: But even they must be played concretely with thought, not on auto-pilot. Absolutely, I don't play the Tromp/Torre on autopilot; I play them because of the resulting positions. I've studied the ChessPub anlayses on these variations and done a lot of my own research on the Torre King's Indian in particular. I'm very much interested in playing these openings with an idea of finding the best moves within them rather than simply as a way of avoiding theory for its own sake. These openings are often used for that reason and are discredited as a result.

Then everything is fine, isn't it?

Knowing/understanding the opening better than the opponent is more important than "objective" evaluations on almost any level, except maybe high-level corr.

winawer77 wrote on 07/18/10 at 22:08:29:

Absolutely, I don't play the Tromp/Torre on autopilot; I play them because of the resulting positions.

Regard yourself on a mission: prove in your games and analysis that the Tromp and Torre are valid openings to create winning chances. Don't care if the rest of the world (including me) disagrees. Only give up this mission if you yourself are convinced that it has failed.
My point is this. Chess would die quickly if everybody agreed.

You run one possible risk though. A few years from now you might reach the conclusion that the Tromp and Torre don't offer anything at all. Switching to 2.c4 (or 2.Nf3/3.c4) from scratch is no peanuts. So you must keep an open eye for interesting ideas and attractive lines vs. the KID, GID etcetera; you must even make notes which you eventually may use later.

I justify using them by getting massive results using them versus 1900-2200s.

I use against lower-rated players who play more regularly, read more theory stuff, but are weaker and have less experience and positional understanding.

Tromp/Torre very effective for this, as not just one-trick ponies. Complex and positionally sound. Check out some old Petrosian games for Torre.

I use once a tournament, maybe more if tired, out of practice. For when I just want to play a game of chess. Not have a sharp theoretical argument.

This...


Quote:

You run one possible risk though. A few years from now you might reach the conclusion that the Tromp and Torre don't offer anything at all. Switching to 2.c4 (or 2.Nf3/3.c4) from scratch is no peanuts. So you must keep an open eye for interesting ideas and attractive lines vs. the KID, GID etcetera; you must even make notes which you eventually may use later.

...is what bothers me. Spending time committing to openings that I'm likely to have to discard later down the line doesn't sit well with me, however much I like them. Maybe just occasional use is the best way, much like I am doing now.

But this...


Quote:

I justify using them by getting massive results using them versus 1900-2200s. I use against lower-rated players who play more regularly, read more theory stuff, but are weaker and have less experience and positional understanding. I use once a tournament, maybe more if tired, out of practice. For when I just want to play a game of chess. Not have a sharp theoretical argument.

..absolutely applies to me. All of it. In my last 10 games with the Torre, I've scored draws with a GM & FM, and a win against an IM. All in FIDE rated tournaments. I score roughly 63% with White in both 2...e6 and 2...g6 Torre setups. Against the Dutch, 2...b6 and 2...d6 the score goes much higher.

Or maybe I should stop overthinking this and get a grip. We play chess because we enjoy it, and if I like these openings, just play them. :-?

winawer77 wrote on 07/19/10 at 17:31:16:

Spending time committing to openings that I'm likely to have to discard later down the line doesn't sit well with me, however much I like them.

Why? This is exactly what GM's do. These days most of them play the Catalan, but just look what happens if thrilling new ideas are found against the Marshall Gambit, the Petrov or the Najdorf - most of them will play 1.e4 again.
Now we amateurs can't afford the luxury of switching openings every tournament. If you think your Tromp/Torre repertoire is good enough you should be able to use it for a couple of years. As soon as you change your mind - and don't like them so much anymore - it's early enough to switch.

From your original post:

"My trouble is mainly ideological - even though I like, understand, and feel comfortable, playing the Tromp/Torre, I have always limited my use of them (often just for a brief change of scenery, or specific opponent) and forced myself to play more mainstream openings. Its these openings that I play in any big tournament."

I'm confused...are you saying that you play mainstream openings in big tournaments or that you play d pawn specials?  If the former and you are rated 2250 (much higher than I ever hope to be) then why in the world would you be interested in anything but your mainstream openings?  They seem to work very well for you.

My advice is to play both mainstream openings and the Torre/Trompowsky. Don't worry if you don't know the theory since the Torre and Trompowsky are two openings where you can more or less find the theoretical moves over the board from move 3.

Like Bibs, I justify my usage of d-pawn Specials with a massive score and because I like them. The Torre and Trompowsky aren't bad, they are just different ways of playing which don't fight for an opening advantage. Your opponents will not be as well prepared for them, and you will find that often you will win in the middlegame due to your greater understanding and experience of the typical pawn structures and ideas.

I enjoy playing the London/150/Barry. I don't need any other justification.

I use d-pawn openings as a springboard towards mainstream 1.d4 2.c4 openings. For example I’m building up a repertoire around the following moves 1.d4 2.Nf3 3.Bf4 (London System & Barry Attack) and will at a later stage introduce main lines in my repertoire.

For instance when Black plays 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 I will go 3.c4.

The advantage of such an approach is that you always have a reliable back-up opening when you don’t feel like playing the main lines. Moreover once you know your d-pawn repertoire well enough you can afford to take the time to thoroughfully study mainline openings.

Torre main line (3...h6 4.Bh4 c5 5.e3 b6 with the pawn at d7) leads to a complex positional struggle where white can chose between different plans and piece arrangements. Even Kamsky employs it from time to time (ok, his results with it are not great against elite players). I don't see why playing this kind of position should limite your chess. Even it could be one more stage in your chess developing playing this way. Maybe playing the torre is not enough to having a life lasting repertoire. (This really exist?? don't think so)
I think that one can play the tromp aiming for an opening advantage. It leads to sharp an unbalanced positions. The problems that arise are exactly the same than in other "d4+c4" openings: If you want to get an advantage vs a strong player you not only will have to know the theory but you should have your own ideas. And when this ideas will be refuted you'll have to develope new ones or change your openings. That's life!

Hi!

I am considering a switch to queen's pawn openings. Not in every game, but many times.
(with most of the variations recommended in Killer Chess Repertoire, but using other sources as well)

(Reasons: I play few games and most of the time against higher-rated (100-200 points higher) opponents, with more experience in their pet defences. Even if I spend considerable time at home preparing for various main line openings, they just feel more at home OTB even despite a few inaccuracies...)
Interestingly enough, in the past, the _majority_ of my successes with White against higher-rated (even FMs) opponents were connected to _rarities_(!). (Colle-Zuckertort, anti-Benoni, Torre Attack, 5.Nbd2 in the QGD, Geller System (c3+Bd3) vs. the Modern, etc)

I have been studying main lines for a while and I am used to them.
But still, the only serious problem that remains is, how to overcome my aversion against the _Barry Attack_?  :)
(I don't like the look of Nc3+Bf4+e3 against that d5 pawn. So unnatural.)
Anyone who did the same change and had the same feelings against the Barry in the past? :)

Against 2...g6, you aren't forced to play the Barry with 3.Nc3. I've played it a bit but 3.Nc3 has never really appealed to me.

Since you already play c3+Bd3 against the Modern, why not try 3.Nbd2 instead? If 3...Bg7, 4.e4 d6 5.Bd3 0-0 6.c3 leads you back into the Geller System. And after 3...d5, 4.e3 Bg7 5.b4 0-0 6.Bb2 followed by a4, c4, Be2, etc is a very decent Anti-Grunfeld that was covered a few Yearbooks back.

I have some trouble believing in the Barry attack myself, if Black plays one of the recommended main lines that counterattack in the centre immediately (If he doesn't, White can have a lot of fun).

But as you say you can easily keep the rest of the "Killer" repertoire and only do something else against the KID and Grünfeld. The London system is one possibility that's quite in the spirit of the rest of the book.

There is also the Smyslov variation with 5.Bg5 and 6.e3 which Yusupov recommends in 'Build up Your Chess 3 - Mastery'. The reason I mention this is that the same book is an interesting resource on the Colle Zukertort.

This post is written in my usual "Oh, I just discovered a new continent, say, America, now I must tell everyone"-style.

So, my intention is to include even more rarities in my White repertoire.
For example,
- 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6/b6/g6 3.Bg5 (Torre) and cut off on theory (White can insert even c2-c4 vs. the KID-setup -- the Smyslov Variation, mentioned just in the previous post)
(like 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3/b3/e3 Bg4 with colors reversed -- in this respect, the Slav + Caro-Kann + 1.c4 c6 + 1.Nf3 d5 are perfect universal defences),
- the quiet Geller System, 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bd3 against the Modern (like the Caro-Kann 2.d3 with colors reversed),
- 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Qc2 against the Slav (similarities with playing as Black against the "London System versus 1..d5" when White plays early dxc5),
- without early c4 against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 e6/b5/g6 and other Benoni Systems (like 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 as Black when I refrain from early ..c5),
- 7.dxc5 (endgame variation) against the QGA,
- 4.Qc2 (of course) vs. the Triangle,
- 2.Nc3 vs. the Dutch,
and so on.

No point in spending nights studying theory up to move 20, while I have not yet reached, say, 2200.
(For that aim, I will just need to play in more tournaments a year than I have done until now, with some more work on my physical condition and more time spent on endgame. I already have some idea about main lines from my experience in the past, I wouldn't be at a loss if I had to play them again, but why not invite opponents within the same rating range to my "home ground"...?)

I didn't want to start a new thread, as this may have been mentioned somewhere else.  But I was curious if any of the D-pawn special people here play the main lines of d4 and only roll out their special, for, umm, special occasions.

I've been playing d4 main lines for several years now since I came back to chess  but ...

I'm pretty fascinated by the London, and could almost always play it against opponents who play the Albin Counter exclusively!  :D

I guess what I'm asking is, are there certain opponents (or situations) when you play a London System or Tromp (or whatever your special is)?

VitolinishBoom wrote on 02/11/11 at 08:08:53:

I didn't want to start a new thread, as this may have been mentioned somewhere else.  But I was curious if any of the D-pawn special people here play the main lines of d4 and only roll out their special, for, umm, special occasions. I've been playing d4 main lines for several years now since I came back to chess  but ... I'm pretty fascinated by the London, and could almost always play it against opponents who play the Albin Counter exclusively!  :D I guess what I'm asking is, are there certain opponents (or situations) when you play a London System or Tromp (or whatever your special is)?

I play a D-pawn Special when I think it will give my opponent some headaches. However my understanding of more mainstream openings is a bit stronger, so I don't use the D-pawn specials much anymore.

I like TN's aproach. The 'd' pawn openings should be used occasionaly because their strenght lies in their practicality and not in their objective strenght. When i don't feel well i like the idea of playing for example the London System where i can make 7-8 moves in "auto-pilot" mode which will give me more time to "get in the mood" of the game while my position will still be safe. Also by getting no advantage out of the opening this will make me try harder and i'll avoid my usuall pitfalls like blowing it all away when my position is strategically winning.

BUT! As i have said many times in this foroum, my opinion is that a casual club player relying on 'd' pawn openings for his repertoire is a certain success to maintain the title of the "casual club player" than moving to the title of the "strong club player" or even FM etc. Having these openings in your repertoire is good of course but relying on them? Simply bad strategy.

In our QC Tarrasch book (Mine and Jacob's) we have decided to include lines for Black against those 'd' pawn openings and in these chapters you'll see exactly why i don't like being White in a regular basis in these positions.