(No has nothing to do with slowakian expression I don't know, but with low mute profile now I haven't paid the fee.)

If you subscribe to the ChessPublishing d-Pawn Specials section, you have access to a number of Super Stonewall games, annotated by GM Prie, most of them with himself playing white. 

See also the May 2005 update of that section for more on the Super Stonewall and on ideas 1. d4 d5. 2. c3!? followed by Bg5 or Bf4.

lol


Ok gives me some lines........

I stoped falling for stonewalls when I was 14.  

let's see this SUPERstonewall


make me a believer.....

This 'superstonewall'-idea pops up everywhere in these lines (also in Davies book on the related Veresov)

Am I missing something?

Is there a line I don't know about?

I don’t see much danger in the opening if one develops in a classical fashion with 1…d5  


By danger I mean, “getting pulled out of a familiar positions and getting whacked by a tactic”.  

The Hodgson/Tromp is famous for this!


1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 with 2…Nd7 then develop with moves like Ngf6, e6, Be7 either c6 or c5 depending on where whites c pawn goes 

If white tries to force the issue I think the worse that happens is a mild version of a Slav exchange or a Tartakower D03.  Or he/she as white could transpose back into a form of  QGD  QGD Exchange or a QGA…but there went the Hodgson attack right out the window.  
I think the danger arises  for black if he/she attacks the bishop at g5 thinking its placement is premature or unsound.  If one starts punching knights up to e4 or pushing f6  (maybe both) then that plays right into that style and opening schemes. 

        

The names of chess openings are quite odd little creatures.
I don't know why some names stick and others don't.
I remember reading that the French used to be called the "King's Pawn Sneak" or something to that effect.
Anyway, names do change over time and for good reason.

I was just hoping to convince some people that since 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 really doesn't have any fixed name as yet (3 names have been mentioned in this thread) and while I agree that Pseudo-Trompowsky is perfectly fine as a name (since it is descriptive), I think it would be even better named as 'Hodgson Attack' for the reasons stated above. 
But as I said perhaps the name Levitsky is more establised than I know...

However, it seems pretty clear that Levitsky is not TOO well establised on either side of the Atlantic since Plaskett's recent book didn't use that name nor does the most recent verison of the (American) opening guide MCO. 
Since it is only the chess community (i.e people like us) who establishes names and not some International Federation (*cough cough*) I thought I'd throw Hodgson's name into the mix before anything else becomes as eternally linked to this opening as Evan's Gambit is or the famous duo Caro-Kan.
Besides... no one really benefits from using the Pseudo-Tromp nomenclature.  At least good ol' Julian can get a little bit of love if we go the other way.  And isn't a little bit of love worth more than none at all?

Cheers.

ps - I doubt there will be a lot of confusion as to which opening is the Hodgson Attack.  Once people hear it, they can easily imagine the d4/Bg5 setup, don't you think? And I don't think there will be a whole lot of new names popping up or fighting for top staus either.  I that once Hodgson is clearly established it will stay that way.
  Just as no one wants to rename the Najdorf (no matter how many times Fischer or Kasparov played it).
So, the Colle is the Colle forever and the Marshall will stay with Marshall...but Levitsky??   I say we try it before it's too late.

'Common' very much depends on location. I would not be surprised that at the wrong  side of the Atlantic the proposed name does not catch on.  1. Nc3 over there is and remains a Dunst, no matter who popularised (?) the opening...

Well  I do not need 'convincing' as to who the main practitioner is, but I am not to eager to see a lot of names attributed to one opening :  as a 1.Nc3-player I know but too well what the 'effects' are.
Besides there are lots of openings who derive their name from players who seldom used the line, isn't it, Mr Gligoric ?

RE: Why not use the existing name of 'levitsky attack' ?

It may well be that the naming rights are already 'set in stone' but I think not, and I'd like to make a few points:

1.) It is not commonly referred to as the 'Levitsky Attack' in most literature (DVD, video, software, etc). In fact, I had not heard that name before (although perhaps it is common in specialist literature? I must plead ignorance on this...) 
In standard reference texts or introductory guides, it is usually called the Pseudo-Trompowsky or simply the Queen's Bishop Attack (when it gets a name at all).

2.) Levitsky himself only played it twice in serious praxis as far as my database can tell.  He drew one and lost the other.  This was certainly not a system that he played frequently or one he fine-tuned into a dangerous weapon.  Many players had dabbled with it (even Alekhine and Gulko tried it twice) but none of them seems to have stuck with it or gave it prominence in tournament play.  Certainly not Levitsky.  It stayed obscure and "dubious" for many decades. 

3.) Hodgson, however, played it 79 times and scored 66%.  He also used it many times against world class opposition (including wins over Gurevich, Sokolov, van Wely, etc).  In fact, Hodgson played in almost as many games with it as I have in my entire database before his first game. {I have 87 games before Hodgson and white scores a horrific 45%}.

Basically, Levitsky neither introduced the opening nor made it even remotely popular in serious play.  Other players have dabbled with it and I see no reason why Levitsky should get naming rights over anyone else. Levitsky didn't write any articles or books that convinced strong players it was a seriously viable system.
Hodgson, however, inspired several british GMs to "give it a go" and then others around the world began to try this idea and the theory expanded immensely.  He played it many times over many years and helped shape it into something that looked respectable. 

Anyway, I mainly think it would be a nice gesture since Hodgson obviously won't be getting his name added to the Trompowsky or have it named after him. (Although the same arguments may easily be made again, since Trompowsky himself niether introduced it and only used it 8 times with bad results while Hodgson played it something like 215 times, scoring an amazing 73% and also pushed for its popularity in print and on video).  It seems unfair that a man who dedicate so much of his time and energy to a completely obscure line, who shaped it into a coherent system and helped it become respectable, and also inspired people all over the world to use it as their main system should take a back seat to an unknown played from nearly 100 years ago who never used it much, did not score well with it the few times he did try it, and didn't convince strong players to take it up as a serious weapon.

I just hate to see Hodgson get completely passed over twice!   
He will not be getting his name added to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 since the name is well established. 

But I don't think the 'Levitsky Attack' is anywhere near as well established yet, and I think it would be a nice tribute to the man who has helped convince millions of people play 1.d4/ 2.Bg5 against almost everything. But maybe I'm totally wrong and there is no way to convince people that Levitsky attack or pseudo-Tromp is not the best name.

I was wondering why the cumbersome name of Pseudo-Trompowsky is used so much for 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5

Wouldn't the "Hodgson Attack" be more appropriate and so much less pedestrian?
We really ought to give Julian his due...


Queen's Bishop Attack is even worse...obviously.

Anyone else agree?