"Conquering the Colle"

So I presume you just play that against the clean sweep of QP systems including the London and Torre?..

that isnt the stonewall- its a typical Colle-Zukertort!

Well, I play the benko gambit against the d4 mainlines so yes all of the lines I play vs. the non-mainline d4 openings involve a kingside fiancetto.

vs the London and Torre the themes are similar, but adjustments have to be made of course.

For example, vs the london I would play something like this:

 Firstly that was the Colle V Colle opening from the start of the thread after which Black deserved everything he got. There are more dangerous ways for Black to play but after playing like a lemon Black allows white to build up on the Kingside with no counterplay (i.e. he was playing like he was bored). I suppose that in the most boring opening imaginable whichever player can play even slightly interestingly (in this case you) wins.

Secondly I want to retract my previous statement that the Colle is sound. It is not. There is a player at my club who always beats me, at any time control, despite only a slight difference in rating and playing strength. Last week he played Colle against my Grunfeld and I won for for the first time with a complete rout. He plays it in the next game as well with exactly the same result. I believe this cured him of his delusions about the Colle since in the third game he played differently and used his Queen's Bishop for once returning to normal form.

Please, for your own sakes, drop the Colle!!!

Ah yes I suppose it is (though that pawn/knight structure IS a stonewall structure), but I would never see it as I don't play the e6 systems. I must admit the Colle is much better vs. e6 stuff than against kingside fiancettos.

Oh come on now, don't pretend you've refuted the Colle.

It's perfectly sound, just not very ambitious for white.

I don't think within reason anyone can say what openings are plain bad and good, unless they find a direct refutation. If he wants to play the Colle then good for him. If he learns it well I'm sure he'll get some good results with it.

And with all due respect a few amateur games cannot prove anything about any opening's validity. If he really got hammered by Black in both games then he's obviously no Colle Expert.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact> I don't see why the colle is so popular.

It's simple to learn, sound, gets all the pieces out, and against an unprepared opponent often leads to quick and/or spectacular wins. Reversed, it also provides a solid defense for Black against d4. I'm coaching a player who has been USCF 700 for years and wants to make 1200, and this is the opening I chose for her so we can focus mostly on tactics.

In her first two games playing it, she was a piece up in the first fifteen moves. :)

OMGdidIrealyjustsact> I feel that white cannot play for an advantage...

Maybe the quest for a theoretical advantage is not as important as reaching a position you understand better than your opponent, for non-GMs. Consider that GM Yusupov, Susan Polgar, and a World Open U2400 winner played the Colle.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact> ...after locking in his Queen's Bishop

Players new to the Colle are often surprised that the dark-squared bishop gets locked in, but it's only temporary in most lines--see the games above.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact> it was written by leading grandmasters who cannot be blamed for wanting to lower the standard of potential competition.

Hah! Well, this lesson was written by an FM named Eric Schiller. And actually, I'm not criticizing his lines. Black can't refute the Colle--so a recipe that is simple and achieves equality is quite reasonable. I'm suggesting:

• The title gave me a chuckle--Black doesn't Conquer the Colle. :)

• The lesson ends too early--White still has some advantage and an attack. IMHO, the lesson should explain that evaluation and how to neutralize it, especially as the title may mislead some to believe Black is better.
  

atomichicken> And with all due respect a few amateur games cannot prove anything about any opening's validity. If he really got hammered by Black in both games then he's obviously no Colle Expert.

Bingo. There are many transpositional opportunities that may catch White unprepared, but I've seen no direct refutation and I don't believe there is one. Logically, the Semi-Slav will be refuted before the Colle is refuted.

LikesForest - Maybe the quest for a theoretical advantage is not as important as reaching a position you understand better than your opponent

When I say "Play for an advantage" I don't mean have a theoretical advantage straight out the opening. What I meant was that in the Colle the plans are less obvious than in other openings (I suppose "less ambitious" is a better way to put it) because the piece gets trapped in. I think what atomicchicken inadvertently said shows this quite well: "He's obviously no Colle Expert". I'm automatically suspicious of any opening that blocks in a piece and needs an expert's handling before you stop being thrashed. In a way it is comparable to the King's Indian in which the King's Bishop is blocked behind e5, but at least in KID once the e5 and f4 pawns are in place the attack plays itself.

On the side being quoted this many times is quite inspiring. Thanks.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact> I'm automatically suspicious of any opening that blocks in a piece and needs an expert's handling

What you miss is, the bishop is only locked in temporarily in most lines. The bishop is freed by the time White is out-of-book, unlike the Stonewall.

As I said, my USCF 700 student had no problem applying the opening in her first two games--she played it well and had an edge in both games. It doesn't take an expert.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact> at least in KID ... the attack plays itself.

The Colle attack also plays itself against an unwary opponent--see any of the three games I posted which cover various levels of play. Of course, no attack, the KID included, is going to play itself against a prepared opponent. Then tactics are key--in which case I'm glad she's spending more time on tactics and less time on openings.

Even if the Colle does eventually let the Bishop out I would not teach beginners it because it reinforces the most common bad habit: not using all your pieces. The first thing I drill into students is "Use your pieces!!". If you then teach the colle then you can quickly expect recrimination followed by the use of a new coach. When a student asks me me for a system I usualy recommend London and/or Torre as the bishop is developed from the start.

Even if the Bishop is locked in temporarily this is still dangerous. In openings where the Dark squared Bishop is often very very useful early on (I can imagine the Grunfeld, Benoni and KID being obvious candidates) the temporary lack of a dark squared Bishop reduces the pressure significantly.

It is my belief that we should be encouraging everyone to play the Colle, as doing so will result in easier games for us as black.

No no, in all seriousness the Colle is a reasonable opening to play. Although, it is my experience that both London and especially the Torre offer white better chances to fight for an opening advantage. IMO the best non-mainline d4 system for white is probably the Trompowsky.

 I think the Tromp should be elevated to mainline status. It is dangerous, fascinating and exciting.

Yea it's pretty cool, but I think it's a notch below the 2.c4 stuff (maybe half a notch ). Black has an easier time of things and there's WAY less theory to learn in the Tromp.

Interesting topic, Likesforests.

    Lots of good feed back.  I have never had much trouble with the Colle System, but I may take your advise next time I see it and copy White's moves.  Since I normally answer 1.d4 with 1.d5 it is another option.  As a Queen's Gambit Declined player I do see it relatively often.  Copying White's moves is more common with 1.e4  1.e5 or in the English Opening.  Worth a shot though.  My preference for White is the Stonewall System or the Trompovsky/Torre Attack.  Usually I open 1.e4 so I am looking at the Colle here from the Blackside.   

This is fun. I only realised who started the post after BillyIdle's comment but it seems both sides of this perennial argument have been laughing at the same joke. Pro-Colles have laughed at Chess Mentor for claiming it has conquered the Colle and Anti-Colles laughed because Chess Mentor tried to do it with exactly the same flaws as the Colle. This reminds me of AVP: Anti-Colle Versus Pro-Colle, whoever wins... Chess mentor loses.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact> Even if the Colle does eventually let the Bishop out I would not teach beginners... it reinforces the most common bad habit: not using all your pieces.

Look again at the model game Colle-Delvaux. Every piece except the a1-rook and king play a role in the win--the Colle is all about developing before attacking.

Good luck with your "secret, Colle-smashing" lines.

ericmittens> No no, in all seriousness the Colle is a reasonable opening to play... [some other openings] offer white better chances to fight for an opening advantage.

Very true.

BillyIdle> Lots of good feed back.  I have never had much trouble with the Colle System, but I may take your advise next time I see it and copy White's moves.

Schiller's idea of copy-cating is an interesting way to play, and if I played the Queen's Gambit Declined I would be tempted to try them.

Personally, I play the Semi-Slav, so I aim to transpose into those lines like so:

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c6!?

Black retains the pesky options of ...Bf5 or ...Bg4, and if c4 e6!? and we're in my territory--either the Semi-Slav / Meran or a favorable QGD / Exchange. :)

 They are not lines and they are probably not secret. One thing that I have noted about several of the posted games is that often Black locks in his own Queenside Bishop like White (e.g. aabbccdd V only_a_game and Colle V Deveraux) so while proving the potential strength of the Colle they also ironically prove its weakness. Basically my "Secret, Colle-smashing line" is Use The Extra Bishop!!!