23 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34If i was going to play 1.d4 i would choose it GP, but i am again into Morphy and
"I am enjoying playing chess again."
And that Robbie is all that matters.
(You will enjoy it a lot more if you stop playing the Colle) 😉
Paulsen and Andersson even Greco, all the pre Seintz guys, and well, once you've
tasted 1.e4 its hard to give it up. The more higher rated players i play, the more i
realise that my endgame really sucks, too many games i have lost after having
winning positions because of the stinky endgame. I know practically nothing about
the endgame, wouldn't know one end of a philador position from the other, have no
clue about rook ending's, nuthin!
Look at this position, i sacrificed the exchange and a piece deliberately to reach this
position, and i still lost! How the heck can three passed pawns not overpower a
knight? i dunno.
23 Feb 11
2 edits
Hi Robbie.
That could have been writing that. Except I was never into Paulsen.
By chance I was looking at a few Greco's this morning.
The three connected pawns are good v a Knight.
And Rook pawns are runners v Knights. The Knight cannot handle them.
Two pawns on the 6th beat a Rook.
One pawn on the 5th beats a Knight.
1.a6 wins.
This is my ending from on here.
I missed his 18.Nc4! it never even entered my head.
I saw his move, thought I was winning a piece and just played Bxc1.
Then he sacs the exchange on the strength of the pawns and
pulls me into an ending. I doomed.
After that I was all over the place jumping from plan to plan.
I did not know if I was winning, losing or drawing.
I've pulled myself out of worse postions but sometimes the good lady
nods her head and says enough is enough.
A good game by the lad.
As a rule I try not to get involved in these circular kinds of debates, but I think the whole thread reflects a misconception of the Colle System.
Rather than see it as a set move order, I think it should be viewed as a favorable position that can be arrived at from a variety of move orders.
Parenthetically, I should add that I think using particular move orders really skews the database statistics, but that's a separate issue.
As an example, look at this game, especially after move 9 (click on "headers" below to see the players, and note that the ECO code is "C03", which is how a database would categorize it):
There are other examples with the Colle coming from 1. Nf3 c5 and other such creative move orders, but I don't want to clog the post with overkill. My point is that many GMs have Colle-type formations as part of their repertoires that are options if the opportunity arises.
At lower levels, a Colle is most likely to occur with the "fish" move order, but the reality is that a great deal of French Classical and Tarrasch games, as well as non-fianchetto Queen's Indians and Benoni's without d4-d5, get classified under headings other than the Colle, but could easily end up there.
Even more importantly, there are some strong GMs who show up on the playbill.
I absolutely know that I am splitting hairs on this, but I feel like this is a salient point that has been overlooked.
At the risk of going on a bit long, I think Robbie's original post has great merit- the Colle is a great way for someone to learn pawn chains and pawn play, as well as how to learn to conduct attacks and also defend. EDIT: It's also a great way to learn how to play with and against an isolated pawn- a dying art, based on my recent experience.
Even when they grow and move on to ...say... 1. e4, or ...perhaps the French or the Queen's Indian from either side, the resulting positions will be familiar, and the knowledge will transfer for them.
Paul
24 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul Leggettwhat a thoroughly excellent post! If i could recommend it I would 🙂
As a rule I try not to get involved in these circular kinds of debates, but I think the whole thread reflects a misconception of the Colle System.
Rather than see it as a set move order, I think it should be viewed as a favorable position that can be arrived at from a variety of move orders.
Parenthetically, I should add that I think using particu knowledge will transfer for them.
Paul
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettNice interesting post. I have noticed there can be alot of transitioning in openings, and also that masters+ often do not use the conventional move order.
Rather than see it as a set move order, I think it should be viewed as a favorable position that can be arrived at from a variety of move orders.
Parenthetically, I should add that I think using particular move orders really skews the database statistics, but that's a separate issue.
For example, masters (or any player) starting out with a white 1.Nf3 to not let on exactly what they are going to do and to first see what their black opponent might do, and to retain flexibility for themselves. In contrast, as for me, I just lazily do 1.d4 if I am going to play the Queen's Gambit, for example.
In terms of transitioning, my brother who is a fairly strong player, does the Reti, English, and Queen's Gambit, transitioning between them if possible depending on the circumstances.
As for your comment about database statistics, the free chess explorer database is serial and it is frustrating because it is serial.
But I have noticed the 365chess games database is not serial. In other words, it gives statistics for a particular position independent of the move order to reach that position. Thus, I don't know if your comment applies.
It really stands out, for example, when a non-conventional move order is taken and say, for example, on move 4 there is just a small number of 20 games for the top move choice, and then once selected, there appears (blossoms into) 400 games for the next top choice, once the common position is reached (it is independent of the move order to get there).
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by moon1969Your second point is essentially my point about how the statistics can be skewed- I think we are on the same page here!
But I have noticed the 365chess games database is not serial. In other words, it gives statistics for a particular position independent of the move order to reach that position. Thus, I don't know if your comment applies.
It really stands out, for example, when a non-conventional move order is taken and say, for example, on move 4 there is just a small nu ...[text shortened]... choice, once the common position is reached (it is independent of the move order to get there).[/b]
Plaskett got to a Colle position against Short using a French move order, and the move order is significant, as I am sure that the stats look very different between the French move order and the "book standard" Colle move order.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by Paul Leggettyour point is so excellent its worth showing some of the transpositions.
Your second point is essentially my point about how the statistics can be skewed- I think we are on the same page here!
Plaskett got to a Colle position against Short using a French move order, and the move order is significant, as I am sure that the stats look very different between the French move order and the "book standard" Colle move order.
R.Fischer v Hort (Caro Khan)1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. c3
Karpov v Vogt (Pirc)1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bd3 O-O
6. O-O Nbd7 7. Nbd2
Silman v Basman (Queens Indian)1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Nd2 e6 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3
Navara v Kanovsky (French defence)1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Be7 4. Bd3 c5
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh boy... ok. First I recc'd Paul's post, because it does have a good point- which is that understanding pawn structures are crucial to good chess play. Learning the Colle pawn structure is a good use of time I suppose
1. Its easy
2. You will never get hijacked in the opening again
3. You will never need to learn another opening for white ever again
4. You will have more time to spend on the middlegame
5. You will have more time to spend on the endgame
6. You will save a fortune on Sicilian opening books which dont make any sense
7. Colle was a master who kne ...[text shortened]... ease dont try its boring, getting demolished by some Sicilian geek is not that much fun either.
Note however the difference between Paul's point and the initial list that started the thread. So let's cover the list again
1) Not a good reason, if it is easy, then it either you have solved chess or it won't create enough complications to have winning chances against decent opposition.
2) How often do you really get "hijacked" in the opening? If you are coming out of the opening horribly worse then you probably have tactical weaknesses that need to be worked on more than a new opening system.
3) About the time all your opponents at the local club realize you play the Colle I think you are going to have a very hard time getting wins as white. That said, if you are ok with draws as White, then the Colle is probably a good choice as it is hard for Black to create winning chances without White being willing to tango.
4) True, but since opening study should focus on pawn structures and transition to middle game plans, shouldn't that already be the idea?
5) True, but why bother to study anything but the endgames that result from the Colle since that is about all you are going to get.
6) True about saving money. With the Colle you need one book and a board and you are good for a lifetime. The Sicilian is a lifelong pursuit best left for Masters, but you have countless options to get simpler positions than the mainline Najdorf. Playing the Rossolimo, the Alapin, the Smith Morra, the Closed, the Snyder etc.
7) True. However, he didnt have the advantage of an additional 70 years of chess praxis to base his conclusions. Capa and Alekhine were world champions but some of their openings would get smashed apart by a modern day class A player.
8) True, although I would rather focus on learning the QGD Slav than the Colle as many of the slav plans require informational advantage to successfully play.
9) The Colle is so utterly overdone at the Class C level and below (at least in the USCF) that you will most likely find that any Class B player has faced it at least a dozen times prior to playing you. If you want an Anti-fashionable opening play 1. e4 which has never been less popular than now at all levels. (Ok maybe the 1920's I would have to check.)
10). True.
Anyone is of course free to play what makes them happy. I just wouldn't recc the Colle as a good long term choice. If someone is playing 1. e4 or 1. d4 and they have the urge to switch due to some "opening" problem than most likely they need to work on the positions giving them problems, not jump starting a new opening system everytime they get stuck.
cheers!
24 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by nimzo5I cannot believe that I am having to intellectually defend a sound opening system, which, in case any one is wondering, has not been refuted.
oh boy... ok. First I recc'd Paul's post, because it does have a good point- which is that understanding pawn structures are crucial to good chess play. Learning the Colle pawn structure is a good use of time I suppose
Note however the difference between Paul's point and the initial list that started the thread. So let's cover the list again
1) Not a g roblems, not jump starting a new opening system everytime they get stuck.
cheers!
1. So we make chess hard for ourselves, by playing, yes. . . grandmaster certified openings that nobody understands, and wonder why we get shafted! As Paul pointed out Colle is a flexible system which, as a 1.e4 player myself, its helpful to know, as it often transposes.
2. How often do players get hijacked? well i have just finished a game against a 2100+ rated player who got 'hijacked', in the opening and was much the worse for it. Just for the record he played his favourite Sicilian and did not really understand what was happening, no surprises there!
3. What other club players play is their business, you can practically say the same thing about any opening system.
4. That is the idea, that we are not spending time learning endless variations of obscure lines that no one is ever likely to play and even when they do, so what? Colle is sound.
5. I cannot count the number of games i have lost because of poor endgame play, today was another example, winning against a player rated 400 points above me and i blow it in the endgame, do you know how frustrating that is? damn endgame!
6. I see, so the Colle can be mastered easily, well praise da lord. I have a chess book, Experts v the Sicilian and its practically useless to someone at my level, it sits on the shelf with other useless chess books gathering dust.
7. Capa and Alekhine were world champions but some of their openings would get smashed apart by a modern day class A player - woa! Controversial or what! Has the Colle been refuted? No, well then.
8. As you have stated, openings are based on pawn structure, this makes the Colle no different from these other openings that you are advocating.
9. Yes and hes never seen a Queens Gambit either ill bet!
10. Good.
Who is advocating jumping from opening to opening? Colle can handle everything, from Kings Indian, to Benoni, to French defence to Caro Khan. Even ol Kasperov played it against deep blue, later transposing to Queens gambit.
slainte
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou love the banter Robbie!
I cannot believe that I am having to intellectually defend a sound opening system, which, in case any one is wondering, has not been refuted.
1. So we make chess hard for ourselves, by playing, yes. . . grandmaster certified openings that nobody understands, and wonder why we get shafted! As Paul pointed out Colle is a flexible system which, as a ...[text shortened]... Even ol Kasperov played it against deep blue, later transposing to Queens gambit.
slainte
It depends on how you define sound. The Colle doesn't lose by force, I agree.
1) Chess is hard, that is the reality of the game. You win games by making the second to last mistake. Playing the Colle, the exchange slav, the exchange french, etc are all systems where by trying to make the complications easy, you will have a much harder time winning. The irony is that to create real winning chances with the Colle, London or other similar systems you need far better technique than you would with 1.e4 cave man attacks at the club level. Afraid of the Sicilian at the club level? really? Trot out the Grand Prix attack push f5 and go for broke. A lot easier to win games that way than trying to nuance locked Knights on e5 and f3 in the Colle.
I do like studying the idea of using the Colle as part of broader repertoire, but lets be honest, if you are playing the Colle because 1. e4 has to much theory than you can forget about being a master of transpositions between the English, London, Colle, CZ, etc.
2) I looked at your game vs that 2100. Black appeared to fail to equalize and went into an inferior endgame which he promptly won. When I think Hijacked I mean 20 move Greenpawn style miniature. The beauty of the Sicilian is that Black gets chances to win, sometimes it crashes and burns badly but that is the nature of unbalanced play. No need to fear it.
3) I know several OTB players who abandoned the Colle or the London because their opponents were able to bang out 10-15 moves without any thought against them. As part of a larger system of openings I like the idea, cagey d4 play is a great weapon against Black prep.
4) Don't study lines, study typical ideas and know model games. Far better to tab through 100 games in your opening at high speed just noting typical piece placements and middle game structures than to memorize GM X's refutation of line Y.
Example. I played the French as my first defense vs e4 online. I went to my first OTB tournament and on the spur of the moment decided to play the sicilian. I literally knew nothing after 1.. c5 and I won 2 of 3 vs strong scholastic players who went on to become NM's. In all three games I came out of the opening worse and went on to outplay them in the middle/endgame. I came out of provisional with a 1700 and change rating and zero opening knowledge. I then studied openings and didnt improve my rating for a year... haha.
5) I noted your endgame, I assign you 100 Capablanca games as penance.
6) I like the experts vs the Sicilian book, particularly Peter Heine Nielson's section. I also think that at my level (1950ish fide) it is a challenging read. I don't reccomend it beyond a reference for CC for anyone below 1800 fide.
7) Yep, my IM coach didnt like me studying their games as he felt the openings were so bad that it might be counterproductive. I ignored him though, as I am perfectly happy to play a refuted line OTB if I think my opponent doesn't now the refutation.
See the minority attack in the QGD for a good example.
8) By that logic if I played a system around 1. e3 2. d3 3.b4 I could justify it as equal to 1. e4 because it has a specific pawn structure. With the first move white has an advantage, I am in the camp that believes White should fight to keep it and that is what makes chess exciting.
9) The Queen's Gambit is the choice of Black not White. Even so, the QGD setups are far more interesting and do in fact fight for a very real advantage. In the exchange variation karlsbad pawn structure you have at least 4 major systems of ideas to implement. Good stuff.
10) ha.
I am advocating fighting for advantage with White from move 1. To do so, it takes more than a procrustean setup.
25 Feb 11
Originally posted by nimzo5oh Nimzo these pleasures , mere snowfalls on the river, rainbows vanishing amidst the storm!
You love the banter Robbie!
It depends on how you define sound. The Colle doesn't lose by force, I agree.
1) Chess is hard, that is the reality of the game. You win games by making the second to last mistake. Playing the Colle, the exchange slav, the exchange french, etc are all systems where by trying to make the complications easy, you will have a mu ...[text shortened]... for advantage with White from move 1. To do so, it takes more than a procrustean setup.
1. Chess is easy peasy lemon squeezy, checkmate wins the game!
2. Sicilian is a two edged sword, white gets all the fun until the end, what is there to fear, its a position, its not gonna bite yer bum!
3. Cavemen attacks are awesome (read it and weep Silman)
4. Dont study anything except opening traps, just play for tempi, space and material, and you will enjoy yourself and be free from worry.
5. Your own personal experience with booked up NM illustrates the point above.
6. I really need help in the endgame, its the worst ever.
7. Nothing is equal to 1.e4, it wins by force!
8. Queens gambit is awesome as a supplement to the Colle in case of ...f5
9. Your coach needs his bum felt!
10. He he!
This is the definitive guide to a to chess success, follow this advice and you will
reach never before imagined success. Play the Colle, become water my friends, it
is struck and it yields, yes it returns with constancy. Even water that drips with
constancy can make a hole in a large rock. Be water my friends and play the Colle!
regards robbie
25 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul LeggettPaul, I think I understand what you are saying. One thing however, in your example, once the Colle position you mentioned is reached, the 365chess statistics for that Colle position would be the same, whether that Colle position was reached by the French move order or by the book standard Colle move order.
Your second point is essentially my point about how the statistics can be skewed- I think we are on the same page here!
Plaskett got to a Colle position against Short using a French move order, and the move order is significant, as I am sure that the stats look very different between the French move order and the "book standard" Colle move order.
I understand that along the way to reach that Colle position, the changing parallel statistics of the two different move orders would not be equal, but once the particular common position (e.g., the Colle position you mention), is reached, the 365chess database statistics converge and are identical and not dependent on the previous move order.
This is not the case for www.chessecodatabase.com, for example, which is serial, and in which common positions never converge, as with 365chess.com.
Thanks for the discussion. I am trying to understand about this stuff.
25 Feb 11
Originally posted by nimzo5Nimzo, my son,
I just adopted the Colle pawn structure in your honor Robbie!
I am unworthy of this honour, never the less, remember our adage, be water my friend! If our opponent expands we yield (dxc5!), if he contracts we fill the gaps (e2-e4 or c2-c4), eventually he shall be deluged and suffer catastrophe!
best of luck young grasshopper!
26 Feb 11
Hi, I'm new here... I just wanted to chime in and say that this was a really great thread to read through. Seems like you have a bunch of nice, knowledgeable guys here - most chess forums I've been too are way too high strung and caustic for my taste.
Anyway, I think the Colle is a fine repertoire choice but I've never known anyone to stick with it (or the London) for long. I know people who have played the KIA for 20+ years though. Just as easy to use, but more exciting play I think.