Hello I like to play the colle system alot and saw a similar opening to it called the torre I'm interested in the cllasical defense variation I just want to know can my games still result in colle positions if I play this or will the fact that the bishop is out in the open hurt my game if I still try to play the colle system.

torre attack is definitely a better choice

even so does it interfier with me still playing as if it was like the colle.

Sumbody plz post a game for this opening.

i think colle is more dangerous now that the phoenix attack was discovered.

Yea its really awesome.

 Can you post a game with the phoenix attack it sounds really interesting

Just a note that the game posted under your request is not the Phoenix Attack. You can read the post I'm about to make on that opening if you want to find out more about it.

Really? to me it seems like the resulting positions are promising only if black is overambitious. But i must admit that my understanding of the position is not that great.

Bresando,

We have only a small sample set currently, but the two most common responses (taken from all games) are 10...e5 and 10...Bg4, making up a large majority of all games. The former option is the most ambitious and has been played by GM Sakaev, GM Karlsson, GM Wedberg, GM Appel (IM at the time, though), and IM Isaev. Which means, at the very least, some extremely strong players did not realize how over-optimistic their play is.

10...Bg4 also gives White a good position, though not as huge an advantage.

I know that and i understand that it's not so easy(thanks for the free sample chapter), but a black player aware of these difficulties can probably play something quiet and i doubt it can be possibly said that white is pressing for an advantage. What other answers to you consider in your book at move 10? 

The Colle and Torre opening systems are very different.  The Colle entails an early e2-e3 for White, blocking the Bc1 but opening the Bf1's development, in an incremental approach to a central advance.  White endeavors to create a situation where the release of tension by multiple exchanges on e4 will leave him with a spatial advantage and the initiative.  The Bc1 is not an early player in this plan, which also explains the popularity of the Zukertort lines with b3 and Bb2 to get some play out of the Bishop.

In the Torre White adopts a completely different strategy.  He envisions either pinning the Nf6 or exchanging the Bg5 for it, and is ready to part with the Bishop pair in favor of quick development.  Usually a similar approach to playing e2-e3-e4 is adopted, but the relative circumstances are different.

Neither path typically offers White very much compared to "normal" Queen's Gambit lines, but they are certainly playable and require Black to play accurately as well, but if he does he will hold his own comfortably.

Along those same lines, I don't think that if your aim is to have a legitimate repertoire with d4, you can consider either the Colle OR the Torre as a standalone solution.

The Torre is fully playable, right up to grandmaster level, as an anti-Indian weapon vs. 1...Nf6 2...g6 or 1...Nf6 2...e6.  But it falls short against 1...d5 or 1...Nf6 2...d5.

Combine the two, and they make a pretty effective repertoire, although black still has a few sneaky move orders that can prove troubling.  (e.g., 1...d5 2...Nf6 3...g6, when the "sneaky Grunfeld" renders the Colle toothless, and 3.e3 will have ruled out Torre or Barry ideas.)

Hi Bresando, I try to give as comprehensive a covering as possible (given the very limited sample of games that have hitherto been played). You can look at the table of contents, on the free samples page, which outlines the responses I consider.

Note that the ToC is 2 pages long. On the second page, you'll find the "Reference Analysis" section which is where I give the most detailed coverage. However, White does not need to learn all those lines at once. The earlier parts of the book give a quick-to-learn version.

I definitely agree with this. One reason the Colle has a poor reputation is that players who adopt it do not take the time to ever learn how to weave it into a larger repertoire. It _can_ be played safely against anything Black does, but that does not mean it _should be_.

A developing player can use this to his advantage because he can learn the various antidotes to pet defenses one at a time without getting crushed when Black uses a line he is unfamiliar with. Unfortunately, if you use that as a crutch and never actually learn antidotes to various pet defenses, the crutch becomes an impediment. A crutch will help you walk, but it difficult to run with one stuck under your armpit.

You can develop an effective reperitoire built around the d4 sidelines. But you will have to make a few concessions that I don't think are really worth it in the long run.

First to be able to effectively use those sidelines you really need to know all of them. There are many opportunities for transposition and knowledge of patterns from the different systems is essential. You need to know the torre, london, colle-koltanowski, colle-zuckertort, and the stonewall attack to have a chance for success at master level. Then you need to play those games an awful lot, because you don't have any gauaranteed advantage like in other openings. The one advantage you have is that the tactical patters are consistent within those systems, and you can be more familiar with the positions then your opponent.

These games are certainly viable, but its no less work reaching master level then if you were playing main-line games.

You don't need to know all the side-lines. You can build a Colle-centered repertoire with just one of the Colle Systems, no london, no torre, and certainly no Stonewall attack.

The special lines you need to know are very specific and limited, and all of them together represent less theory than what most repertoires require.

And I disagree, of course, that White has "no guaranteed advantage like in other openings." That's the sort of CW the Colle-hating majority like to repeat to one another, but that doesn't make it true.

I say this as someone who has played d4 sidelines quite a bit in tournament level chess, and knows a few master level (and titled) players who stick to these systems-

Black has a path to near equality in these games. Unlike the colle-hating majority I know that this does not make the opening bad by any means. You still get good chances to fight for a win in a fantastic attacking opening. You still have a predictable game with familiar positions and tactics. You just don't have a GM level attack unless you out-play your opponent in the middle game, and as a result at high level black wins as often or more then white. Below master level this is totally fine as inaccuracies in play make opening advantage pretty much irrelevent beyond the familiarity that the sidelines provide.

The point about needing to know the other sidelines is only refering to what it takes to bring these systems up to master level play. There are lines in the London, for example, where whites best chances are to relocate the bishop from f4 to g5 to make room for an f pawn advance. London players without an understanding of the torre generally retreat the bishop to g3 instead. London players need to know the colle or an early c5 can lead into an exchange-slav that white isn't prepared for.

Colle players need to know ideas in London and QGD when black develops his queens bishop early to be able to transpose into favorable lines. And all of these systems need a seperate plan for dealing with gruenfeld lines, too. Such as the barry attack.

What makes the "no gauaranteed advantage" line true is statistics. All of these d4 sidelines score in the low to mid 40% range on chessbase. If you follow best lines in far enough the numbers come up to around 50%. Contrast this with QG where blacks most dangerous and principled responses like the nimzo-indian white still scores above 50%.

Hmm...I'm having doing multi-quotes here, so I'm just going to quote you directly.

Pellik said, "You just don't have a GM level attack unless you out-play your opponent in the middle game."