Ginger GM Collection Sale

[NickFaulks]

I never had much trouble playing it against it myself - just used to go 1...Nf6 2Bg5 Ne5 and just get c5 in quick

...Ne4 presumably. The trouble is that White has spent half of his life analysing this position and is hoping for it.

[Jon Mahony]

I never had much trouble playing it against it myself - just used to go 1...Nf6 2Bg5 Ne5 and just get c5 in quick

...Ne4 presumably. The trouble is that White has spent half of his life analysing this position and is hoping for it.

Yeah Ne4 - like I said I'm a minor player!

[Simon Rogers]

I wouldn't trust the analysis on some of the earlier ones, when I think of the grading points I’ve lost trying to play that Winawer - Ginger GM says we have a good attacking game here and the computer gives me a position the equivalent of a piece down Harry the H pawn can F right off.

They did get better though, I'm quite interested in the new one on the English but price is an obstacle...

You could try playing the KIA or exchange variation against the French.

[Jon Mahony]

Anyone checked out the new video on the Tromp yet?

Personally I'm liking it - some great attacking ideas in an opening I've rarely given much consideration to (always believed it akin to a London - i.e. a bit basic and boring). Nice way to side-step a lot of theory too.

I will say I've discovered a bit of an omission in that surprisingly 2.Bg5 h6 isn't covered - not a popular second move for black (something like 6th in the database) but I've already come across it quite a bit online - It's certainly a little more common than other rare second and third moves which are covered.

Aside from that minor gripe, well worth the money - the little bonus section with Julian Hodgson (a GM whose books I've admired for years but never heard talk... louder than I expected ) is also a pleasing little touch.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Surprised anybody could think of the Tromp as "boring" (whatever its other merits) there are a lot of very sharp and tactical variations.

[Roger de Coverly]

s
Surprised anybody could think of the Tromp as "boring" (whatever its other merits) there are a lot of very sharp and tactical variations.

It's not really an opening that can be played successfully without a working knowledge of the theory. My take on it after playing it in the 1990s and early 2000s is that both players are liable to get bad positions. Checking what now seem the main lines, they get weirder by the year. By contrast what y ou knew fifty years ago about how to play 1. d4 2. c4 positions is mostly still relevant.

For what it's worth, here's a winning trick fisrom a game I played twenty years ago. Something similar is in a book by Peter Wells from around the same period,

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 Ne4 3, Bf4 c5 4, f3 Qa5 5, c3 Nf6 6. d5 e6 7, e4 Qb6 8. Na3 Qxb2 9. Nb5 Na6 10. dxe6 dxe6 11. Rb1 Qxa2 12. Ra1 Qb2 13. Rxa6

[Jonathan Bryant]

I will say I've discovered a bit of an omission in that surprisingly 2.Bg5 h6 isn't covered ....

My guess is that they didn't bother because the basis of the repertoire is to play Bxf6 so ... h6 just burns a tempo to 'force' you to do something you want to do anyway.

My initial thought was that it didn't really count as an 'omission' to leave out a line that leaves White a free move ahead of normal lines. For instance, would Lawrence Trent's Trompowsky video really be worse without the two minutes he spends on 2 ... h6? (You can see it in a free sample here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xMeSyC5LQc)


On reflection, though, I think maybe it was worth doing anyway - Brian Tillis uses 2 ... h6 to show the general 'dream positions' that White is aiming for in the second video of his free Tromp course
https://youtu.be/nLzbNdBFgZI



Anyway, the my real reason for posting here is to ask if anybody knows when 1 d4 Nf6, 2 Bg5 Ne4, 3 h4 as Williams' recommends in this course became known as The Raptor? I know that it's commonly used now, but I'm fairly sure nobody called it that back in the 80s/90s when Hodgson was playing it a lot.

[Matt Mackenzie]

My own view on this is that any move you are quite likely to see at club/congress level should feature in these surveys, even if they aren't all that good objectively speaking. And 2....h6 seems like it is that sort of move.

[Roger de Coverly]

2....h6 seems like it is that sort of move.

You gain a Bishop pair and possible later control of the dark squares without committing the c and d pawn
in exchange for a tempo.

[Simon Rogers]

Against the Tromp, after 2.e4 and 3.Bf4, I play the sharp 3.g5. With an exciting game.

[Roger de Coverly]

Against the Tromp, after 2.e4 and 3.Bf4, I play the sharp 3.g5. With an exciting game.

Julian Hodgson used to play the sequence 1. d4 Nf6 2, Bg5 Ne4 3, Bf4 g5 4. Bc1. The threat is 5. f3 and 6, Bxg5.

g5 is"normal" if such a thing exists in the Tromp after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 Ne4 3. Bh4 g5 and now 4. f3 gxh4 5, fxe4

[LawrenceCooper]

Against the Tromp, after 2.e4 and 3.Bf4, I play the sharp 3.g5. With an exciting game.

Julian Hodgson used to play the sequence 1. d4 Nf6 2, Bg5 Ne4 3, Bf4 g5 4. Bc1. The threat is 5. f3 and 6, Bxg5.

g5 is"normal" if such a thing exists in the Tromp after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 Ne4 3. Bh4 g5 and now 4. f3 gxh4 5, fxe4

I have a vague recollection that after 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 Ne4 3 Bh4 that c5 4 f3 g5 was considered a better move order as after 3 Bh4 g5 then 4 Bg3 and black has played the weakening g5 but white hasn't committed to the weakening f3.

[Jonathan Bryant]

My own view on this is that any move you are quite likely to see at club/congress level should feature in these surveys, even if they aren't all that good objectively speaking. And 2....h6 seems like it is that sort of move.

This seems very reasonable. And ... h6 doesn't exactly lead to positions that are bad for Black. It's just that other moves are even more equal.



As for my question about when The Raptor became The Raptor ... I picked up a copy of Hodgson's old book on the Tromp via amazon the other day. Published in 1997 and it just calls the line "The h4 Trompovsky".

Peter Wells' book came out in 2003 so that's the next candidate - although TBH Raptor doesn't feel like a very Wellsy kind of a name to me so if I had to guess it will turn out to be later than his book too.

[Nick Burrows]

Peter Wells' book came out in 2003 so that's the next candidate - although TBH Raptor doesn't feel like a very Wellsy kind of a name to me so if I had to guess it will turn out to be later than his book too.

Wells mentions it but doesn't cover it or name it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Wells mentions it but doesn't cover it or name it.

Ah, thank you.

Next up would be Nigel Davies (2005) but from the chapter list it seems unlikely.
Pert (2013) and Lakdawala (2015) and Kryakvin (2018) all seem only to cover 2 ... Ne4, 3 Bf4 so it's not too probable it will be any of them either.


So however 1 d4 Nf6, 2 Bg5 Ne4, 3 h4 ended up being called The Raptor, it doesn't seem to have come from a book.



Talking of Davies, a google search brings up a post of his using - but not inventing - the name in 2017
https://chessimprover.com/the-return-of-the-raptor/