16 Feb 11
Originally posted by geo86012It is self evident that one can state the same thing about any sound opening. It
It seems to me that a quick Bf5 from Black neutralizes the Colle.
I don't understand the 'play something simple to get me safely into the middlegame' approach. At what point do you give up the safety-first ideas and start playing for a win? Why delay aggressive play until part-way through the middlegame? Why not play for a win from move one?
appears to me, that objections to the Colle amount to nothing more than intellectual
snobbery, for we may ask the same of the Sicilian Sveshnikov or the orthodox
Queens Gambit Declined, at what point does one start playing for a win?
It appears to me that Bf5, the so called anti Colle only means one thing, that we
need to try a different tact, for now the main attacking ideas are not now possible,
however, it must be noted that in playing ...Bf5 black is creating positional
weaknesses elsewhere. Indeed its very interesting to note the historical
development of the system against this idea. Colle himself initially tried simply to
play Bd3 with interesting results, it was later found that black play could play ...e6
and after the exchange get an outpost on e4.
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie-
It is self evident that one can state the same thing about any sound opening. It
appears to me, that objections to the Colle amount to nothing more than intellectual
snobbery, for we may ask the same of the Sicilian Sveshnikov or the orthodox
Queens Gambit Declined, at what point does one start playing for a win?
1) Loved the notes to the Janowski game, thanks for taking the time to plug those in.
2) The Svesh and the QGD orthodox are both black defenses not White openings. The point is that with the White pieces you start with an advantage (how much is debateable) and while a player may not choose to take advantage of it by choice of opening, it does exist.
Some openings drag that advantage into the middle/endgame where it can reap benefits and other openings either through repeated play (Trompowski for example) or through passive play (Colle, London etc) give up that advantage.
I don't think it is intellectual snobbery, I think you need to play the Colle for about 3 years and see if your results are the least bit better- and when they are not, you will have your own conclusions about what you have gained from the experience.
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't have any examples. I do not keep a record of my games. I've played chess for 4 years on and off and when I started I was really very, very bad and was totally without a clue.
hi dude, do you have any examples, for i am sure that if you posted them, we could find a solution. Playing the Colle does not seem to me to be a problem, unless we are machine like and follow it without questioning or evaluating the positions which arise. It should not become a tyrant over us, but a tool to achieve a relatively easy development. ...[text shortened]... on of the king and if we can chase away the f6 knight with e5, we shall be in really good shape.
I went to the Colle just to get out of the opening. So I'm sure many problems I had was a result of not knowing what to do (I have the same problem now, it just isn't so profound).
No opening should be a tyrant. You've always got to play the board no matter what your first move may be.
There are a couple of other things that I like about 1.b3->
It's just as easy to learn as the Colle.
It naturally sets up more tactics(simply because you don't have to deal with a clogged diagonal with pawns on d4 and d5). Sure you can set up tactics with any opening, 1.b3 just sets them up more naturally.
It's an off beat opening. Everyone learns to defend against 1.e4 and 1.d4, but how many people spend time studying against 1.b3? It looks so bad from a beginner's point of view that you can catch people not taking you seriously.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo you shouldn't, at least according to Dave Rudel of the Zukem fame, who expressly states not to play the Colle-Zukertort against a black fianchetto system:
I would only play the Zuckertort against a black fianchetto system.
"When the Colle Zukertort isn't the Best Choice.
It would be nice if there was a perfect chess opening out there, but there's not. The Colle Zukertort like all chess openings has both it's strengths and its weaknesses. So the question arises, "When is the Colle Zukertort not a good option?" The answer is simple. When your opponent plays the Kings Indian Defence or a Grunfeld structure. Basically if your opponent plays an early king side Fianchetto then you don't want to use the Colle Zukertort. Instead you should either play the main lines of the Kings Indian or Grundfeld, or try a different setup like the Barry or 150 attack. Whatever you choose make sure it is something your comfortable with." (Emphasis added).
21 Feb 11
3 edits
Originally posted by moon1969Yes i stand to be corrected! Never the less even here we can get easy life! Against
No you shouldn't, at least according to Dave Rudel of the Zukem fame, who expressly states not to play the Colle-Zukertort against a black fianchetto system:
"When the Colle Zukertort isn't the Best Choice.
It would be nice if there was a perfect chess opening out there, but there's not. The Colle Zukertort like all chess openings has both it's streng Whatever you choose make sure it is something your comfortable with." (Emphasis added).
Kingside Fianchetto we play for an early e4 which limits blacks possibilities in KID
counter play is usually directed around ...f5), for he shall be forced to choose as
you say between a pirc/kings indian and grunefeld with ...d5
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nd2!? with idea to play a quick e4
Karpov v Shabanov (reached from a different move order)
Karlsson v Zeigler (gruenfeld set up)
22 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by nimzo5Black scores well in the Sicilian but who wants to give up 1.e4 which many consider to be the most natural move 😉 Rather interestingly there is an excellent contributor to the forum who has stated in private mail that he shall be playing the Colle exclusively in a forth coming tournament. We wish him the best of luck 🙂
In my database black scores well vs this setup with either d5 (your Grunfeld setup) or c5.
22 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie- When I say Black scores well, it's a polite way of saying the opening sucks.
Black scores well in the Sicilian but who wants to give up 1.e4 which many consider to be the most natural move 😉 Rather interestingly there is an excellent contributor to the forum who has stated in private mail that he shall be playing the Colle exclusively in a forth coming tournament. We wish him the best of luck 🙂
Anytime Black is scoring 55% in a line, it is time to give up the ghost. You can argue that at the amatuer level that it doesn't matter, but as your opposition gets tougher, it will matter.
22 Feb 11
Originally posted by nimzo5Nimzo my friend, lets see how our intrepid player does. As you rightly point out, we are amateurs, what passes at higher levels is of little consequence to us, never the less, when Karpov beat Shabanov, it was not at amateur level, nor was it when, Karlsson beat Ari Zeigler.
Robbie- When I say Black scores well, it's a polite way of saying the opening sucks.
Anytime Black is scoring 55% in a line, it is time to give up the ghost. You can argue that at the amatuer level that it doesn't matter, but as your opposition gets tougher, it will matter.
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieKarpov beating someone I never heard of doesnt impress me much, especially when in recent play Carlsen lost to Radjabov.
Nimzo my friend, lets see how our intrepid player does. As you rightly point out, we are amateurs, what passes at higher levels is of little consequence to us, never the less, when Karpov beat Shabanov, it was not at amateur level, nor was it when, Karlsson beat Ari Zeigler.
What might work for 1400 won't work for a 2000, and certainly won't work for a 2200. My comments are aimed at 1700's who want to scale to 2200.
23 Feb 11
Hi Robbie.
I see you are tying yourself up in knots (again). 😉
"...what passes at higher levels is of little consequence to us..."
So why quote and show games played by Karpov & Karlsson
in an attempt to prove a point.
At our level the luckier player wins.
The one who is lucky enough not to make the LAST blunder.
Now if you are lucky enough to steer someone into an opening
you understand, in this case The Colle.
Then the blunder gun is pointing at your opponent.
If he can survive the opening and get into an even middlegame
then the blunder gun points at whose ever move it is.
And the weaker or unluckier the player, then the more bullets in the gun.
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34So why quote and show games played by Karpov & Karlsson
Hi Robbie.
I see you are tying yourself up in knots (again). 😉
[b]"...what passes at higher levels is of little consequence to us..."
So why quote and show games played by Karpov & Karlsson
in an attempt to prove a point.
At our level the luckier player wins.
The one who is lucky enough not to make the LAST blunder.
Now if you ar ...[text shortened]... se ever move it is.
And the weaker or unluckier the player, then the more bullets in the gun.[/b]
in an attempt to prove a point.
Thats easy, to show that the line is playable.
I agree, we play 'coffee house', chess. This has come as a kind of revelation to me GP, an epiphany if you like. It like so refreshing, i am enjoying playing chess again, where for ages i wasn't, so concerned with this approach, or that approach, or what if my opponent plays this line, its really all quite inconsequential. Its like discovering your identity after you forgot who you were.
23 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by nimzo5what can i say Nimzo, if you dont like it then dont play it. why should you play something that you have no confidence in? anyone who wants to get from 1700 to 2200 has more to worry about than their choice of opening.
Karpov beating someone I never heard of doesnt impress me much, especially when in recent play Carlsen lost to Radjabov.
What might work for 1400 won't work for a 2000, and certainly won't work for a 2200. My comments are aimed at 1700's who want to scale to 2200.