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. 

Quote:


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 23:08:29:

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.

This...

Quote:


...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:


..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.

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.

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

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!