I have played 1.d4 2.c4 most recently as white, but do not want to have to learn all the indian defenses.  I have been looking in my opening book, which covers the Colle and London System much too briefly, and online databases and I have found that, though the London doesn't block the c1 bishop in, it is less successful, giving black better chances statistically...

I don't know which would be a better choice to learn...help, please.

Thanks

DJ

p.s.  I have been wondering for a long time: how do you pronounce "Maroczy"?

Thanks again

Neither. 

Seriously, the London and Colle systems are "systems" and therefore don't lend to giving you a strong advantage.  They mostly help you avoid tons of theory and allow you to know your way around pretty well in the opening once you learn them.  I toyed with d4 systems a little myself.  I found the Colle, particularly the Zukertort, more interesting and more promising that the London.

If you want some books, there's the Zuke 'Em books by David Rudel and A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire by Aaron Summerscale.  They are good if you're into the whole 1.d4/opening system thing.

Have you checked the colle-zukertort? 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b2

If you're only concerned about the indian defences I would look into the Torre attack. The Colle is generally more effective vs. a nimzo/QGD setup, whereas setups with g6 render it pretty harmless.

The London is just tame IMO.

The torre on the other hand, is pretty crumby vs QGD setups, but against lines with g6 makes a lot more sense.

I like the Colle system - it's pretty much a Semi-Slav in reverse, and it's all about the e4 and c4 pawn breaks. Against the KID, you can usually play e4 against black's ...e5. In a symmetrical Colle, both sides are going for the pawn breaks. The Colle is always fun to play in blitz.

The London system is a safer opening, but from my experience the bishop on f4 feels ineffective and even misplaced when black doesn't play ...d5, as in the KID. But when black does play ...d5, I think the London system is very reliable. I know several people who play it regularly with success.

I think London is q quite sensible option. 

To play 1.d4 mainlines (i.e., 2.c4 or 2.Nf3 3 c4) requires lots of studies; without pretty much theory, you get NO advantage against e.g., Ortodox QGD, Semi-Slav, QID. Absolutely zero. 

Using London, practically seen, you may get some games where black is equal, but several other games you get very promising positions due to black not knowing his stuff. 

Hence: with much less opening preparation required, you can study e.g., rook endgames in depth, occuring once in every 5 games; winning these instead of losing them. Or, studing strategy, or a sharp black opening to get winning chances as black. 

I have played mainline 1.e4 and 1.d4 many years and I always had to work extremely hard trying to crack Sicillian, Caro-Kann, and all the other party-killers. Now I win at least as many games, by simply developing soundly and start the battle at move 15 instead of at move 1.

Here's one way to pronounce Maroczy (besides Wikipedia of course):

http://www.forvo.com/word/g%C3%A9za_mar%C3%B3czy/

BTW just tough it out & keep on playing QGA/QGD etc. Colle and London are both dud openings IMHO. However if you choose to ignore my sage(?) advice try figuring out which opening works better for YOU no one else can tell you that!

I don't think at your rating level (which is same as mine, so I hope you don't feel offended) you should have this much concern about "learning the Indians". If you play opponents at the same level, they won't know anything about the Indians - there *are* some 1200s who know 20 moves of their favorite Sicilian variation, but 1. d4 isn't played as often at 1200 level that it would make sense to anyone to spend that much time on learning a defense he would probably get to play in 1 out of 10-20 games. (I've played about 20 OTB tournament games so far, probably half of them as black, and up to this point *never* faced 1. d4.)

I used to play the Colle a lot some years ago ... Nowadays I mostly play 1. e4, but sometimes I play 1. d4, sometimes Colle, sometimes 2. c4 without worrying about opening study.  There was not a single 1. d4 game I lost as White because of too little opening knowledge.

I respect your opinion. At the same time, I don't see the logic in playing a theoretical mainline opening if it doesn't reward you more than a simplistic 'dud' opening.

Look at the new 2-volumes Gruenfeld for black, by Averbach, Quality Chess. Enormous books, with long complicated lines for black that gives white a very hard time. If you meet someone knowing these lines, you get nothing unless you have prepared something. To do that, you need these books in the first place.

Or, you play London, and get a playable solid but possibly equal position. 

From a practical point of view ... is that really so bad? (Indeed, i often get quite good positions, instead of these horrible QGD dull positions where 2 pieces are exchanged before black gets in e6-e5 and equalizes).

I prefer Colle because IMHO with such pawn formation, Bc1 is needed on queen's side and is often out of game on g5 or h4 ( unless you want to volunterly give your oponent two bishops).

Maroczy: letter group cz sounds in Hungarian as z in German - like z in Zukertort. Czy would sound like ci in citadel. I'm no linguist, but I hope this helps.

corret is colle

Have you considered keeping the Queen's Gambit stuff, but just subbing in the Trompowsky against Nf6?  That's got a lot better pedigree than the Colle or London, and still pretty effectively cuts out the Indian defenses.

(Plus, the Tromp is wicked fun.)

Good suggestion, I will consider it (the Trompowsky). 

I enjoy playing the London, which is especially effective against opponents who dislike cramped positions.  The problem comes in when you face an opponent who really likes a tough positional game...and then piece placement can be awkward.  I tend to get either a quick mate or a slow loss with it.

The London System can be defended well by Black with a Hedgehog setup, however it does require patience.  You can also defend the Colle system with a Hegehog, but it's not as effective as just playing the main lines.

On the White side, if I am going to play the Colle System, I will open 1.Nf3 and then I will only go into it if Black plays ...e6 before developing the Bishop on c8.  Seems that a lot of tournament players like to play an early ...Bg5 or ...Bf5 vs the Colle System and despite what George Koltanowski had to say on the subject, Black will usually equalize without difficulty.

I never really liked to play the London system because I'd rather put White's light squared Bishop on b2 than on f4.

Out of the 3, (colle, london, torre) the colle is the only one which does not allow black easy counterplay on the queenside dark squares. So...at least it has some serious solidity going for it, if that's your thing.

There is nothing to choose between them, the London can be played against Indian Defences, generally the Colle is not so good in that situation.

Of the two I would go for The London as a more all round system.

The London System is definitely a great choice (it is what I play). The fun thing with either system is that if you play either religiously (letting the wins, losses or draws fall where they may), you will develope a "working knowledge" of the themes and nuances of the arising positions that your opponenents may not have prepared for. 

In an opening considered to be "dull" or "irrelevant", you may even end up with some victories due to Black's impatience or underestimating his chances in a given position.

That being said, I prefer the London as I enjoy the flexibility of the f4 bishop to attack on the queenside or kingside depending...

To each their own - play what is comfortable, then just spend MOST of your time with tactics and endgame study  .