Davies doesn't really look at 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6 3.Nd2, probably because of the Torre Attack transposition.  I would just note that Burgess' book on the Torre Attack (a little dated, but still a good resource) doesn't offer much hope for a White advantage in these lines.  Still, they are quite solid for White and if Black isn't well-prepared for the Torre the 3.Nd2 idea might be useful.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5, Davies considers 3.Bxf6, 3.d5 (and the Vaganian Gambit), and 3.Nc3.  Although I would guess that the former is the purest Tromp approach (why play Bg5 if you are not willing to take on f6 and double Black's pawns if allowed?), Davies also seems to think that the Vaganian Gambit (after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.d6 Qb6 4.Nc3!? Qxb2 5.Bd2) is in decent shape, and that the sharp positions after 3.Nc3 cxd4 4.Qxd4 are playable for White.  So he gives what appear to be 3 viable alternatives for White in the 2...c5 lines.

      - Geof

Hi Geof,

Why don't you register your name on the forum? I already noted that you frenquently post interesting and useful stuff and it's a shame you're not a registered user. This way we'll always know for sure that's you who is posting the messages we are reading and not someone else who just "borrowed" your name. Maybe you don't know, but by registering you'll always know what topics have new replys since the last time you read them - which helps A LOT to keep track of the most intereting threads - and you can change your posts after you posted them, another pretty useful feature to correct mistakes or add something that you forgot.

By the way John Cox, if you're reading this message, the same apply to you!

Now getting back to the topic, what Davies says about 2... c5 in his book? And Wells? This line is very interesting since you hit the center and play Qb6, highlighting the drawbacks of a early development of the queen bishop. In fact, one could argue that's the most testing line against white setup from the positional point of view. The popular 2... Ne4 works very well for black, but it looks rather cheek! Another positive thing of 2... c5 is that the resulting positions are very imbalanced.

Cheers,
ranjk

Inn:

    Against 2...e6, Davies thinks that 3.e4, 4.Bxf6 and 5.c3 is fairly promising for White, and he deals with both the French setups (...d5 followed by ...c5) and the dark-square systems (...d6 followed by e5 or g6) pretty well.  He also considers 3.e3 to be interesting, as in some lines White can avoid the rather solid but boringly = Torre lines and play for a Stonewall set up with f4 with the dark-squared B outside the pawns.  Of the 2, Davies seems to think that the 5.c3 lines offer White hope for an advantage.

     Against 2...d5, Davies concentrates mostly on 3.Bxf6 lines, and although he doesn't seem to claim that White has any advantage in these lines he does demonstrate some interesting ideas.  He also considers 3.e3 and 3.Nd2 to be interesting, particularly the former.

     I think that if someone is looking for an advantage in all lines then the Tromp is probably not the right opening.  But there are some fairly double-edged positions after both 2...e6 and 2...d5 that would appear most accurately evaluated as unclear and which provide plenty of scope in which to outplay an opponent.  With an opening like the Tromp, that is probably the best someone can realistically hope for.
 
     - Geof Strayer

I have received a copy of GM Davies' "The Trompovsky" and have been looking it over for a few days now.  It's in the typical Everyman format of complete, fairly heavily annotated games (67 of them).

I have to admit that I originally wondered how much Davies could really add to GM Peter Wells' wonderful book on the Trompovsky that came out in 2003.  That book has received extremely favorable reviews, and really established a kind of gold standard in my mind in terms of explanations of plans and ideas in critical positions and original analysis.

However, having now looked at Davies' book, I think that he has in fact created a worthy addition/sequel to Wells' book.  First, a relatively large number of his main games (approximately 25 of them) were played in 2003 and 2004, so he analyzes a lot of very recent theoretical material that Wells simply didn't have access to when he wrote his book.  So Davies' book can, in that sense, be considered a thorough update of Tromp theory.  (Davies also includes a number of older games critical to Tromp theory, so that his book could also serve as a stand-alone work on the Tromp.)

Second, it is clear that Davies has examined prior works on the Tromp (particularly Wells' book, as the most recent major work) very carefully and tried to refine/evaluate (and sometimes critique) the analysis in those books.  In other words, he is building on past efforts in his book, but he is also trying to add to them.

Third, I think Davies' book is perhaps the most objective book on the Tromp that I have seen so far (I only have Wells' and Gallaghers' books, so I haven't seen everything).  Although his book could be used by someone who plays the Tromp as White to put together a repertoire, it could also be used as by someone who plays against it as Black to learn a viable defense to the Tromp.  Davies has played both sides of the Tromp and he seems very even-handed in his evaluation of positions, not necessarily trying to prove an advantage for either White or Black in any of his analysis.  Although Wells did a pretty good job of being objective as well, Wells' book was a repertoire book and in a relatively few instances he seems to have strained a bit to find an edge for White, or to have overlooked or ignored some fairly promising moves for Black.  I don't see any similar indications that Davies ever strayed from complete objectivity in his evaluations.

Fourth, Davies examines a number of lines for White that have been either underestimated or ignored by other books on the Tromp.  The most salient example is his coverage of the 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3. Bh4!? line (he also covers the 3.Bf4 line in detail), which is the most thorough I have seen anywhere, and he is guardedly optimistic about the theoretical future of this line.  I personally think that one of the advantages of the Tromp is that there are a number of playable lines for White in most variations, each leading to different types of positions and posing different problems to Black.  Some of these alternatives may not promise any advantage against best play, but they often do require some accuracy by Black and even with perfect play can lead to interesting and relatively unexplored positions.  Davies does a good job of covering a fairly wide range of alternatives in enough detail to let a Trompovsky player expand his horizons a bit with some confidence.

Probably due to limitations in space, Davies hasn't gone into the explanatory detail that is found in Wells' book, and I do think for that reason that Wells' book is still a very useful book for anyone trying to learn and understand the Trompovsky from the ground up.  But for people serious about their Tromp theory who already have Wells' book, Davies' book is the most current and objective source of information and will add a significant amount to their understanding of critical lines.

I also have Davies' books on the Gruenfeld, Alekhine's Defense and Reti opening.  Of the four books, all of which I think are pretty good,  I personally like this latest book on the Trompovsky the most.  It could have something to do with the fact that there are so many unexplored or unresolved theoretical questions in the Tromp that there is still enormous scope for original analysis in this opening.  It is also possible that Davies consciously realized that he was following close behind a truly marvelous book by Wells and had to do something a little special to justify a new book on the Tromp.  But whatever the reason, I think he has created a very interesting and useful addition to the Tromp literature, and I would strongly recommend his book to anyone serious about Tromp theory.

      - Geof Strayer

I agree that Wells' is a white repertoire book, but that makes it very easy to pick the best Black response... so what's the problem then ?
I don't know what opening you play against 1. d4, but most allow you to out-move-order the Tromp... (For instance, 1... e6 lets you reach a Nimzo or a Benoni,  1... d6 or ...g6 a KID, and so on) Afer all, 1. Nf6 intends to rule out 2. e4, a move to be 'feared' (?) from Veresov and BDG-players only.

elspringer,

To answer ypur question: I know that Well's book is a good one (I read lots of rewiew who praise it), but it's now a bit outdated AND it's more a white repertoire book. I would prefer a reference book on the Trompowsky which presents the lines for white and black

Quote:


That martin article was written AFTER wells' book was published, so can you imagine my annoyance! In fact I would say that it is a good article, but for black. 

3. e4 is no claim to an advantage. I don't believe in 6. Qd3?! which looks obviously clumsy. There are so many ways to a good position for Black. Just turn on Fritz! While i'm hardly an advocate of "uncritically" using computer analysis, but in this particular case fritz just threw up so many excellent suggestions for Black that were not dealt with in the book. 

The only good line he gives is 5. c3 but black can simply play d6/e5 and block on all the dark squares. If you read Wells' book carefully he mentions this possibilty but doesn't give any good recommendations on how to combat it. 

It is true no opening confers White any advantage, but this line just looks more equal than others. The bishop pair just seems to be surrendered too quickly for nothing.

I do not believe at all in playing torre-style (e.g. 3. Nd2) so that's the end of the tromp for me.

On J. Silman's website there is a four part article on the 2.- e6 by Andrew Martin with the provocative title Trashing the Tromp. Probably useful reading for those who want something for Black against the Tromp. Here it is: http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/091203_trashing_tromp.html

Anyway, after a quick look it seems to me that Wells has read the article.

Quote:


I am currently studying the Tromp, therefore:

Inn2: Which 2.- e6 lines put you off the Tromp? And in what way do you think Wells is unsatisfactory?