Colle System mainlines for Black, how did they become so, and are they the best?

When playing against the Colle systems I've always been developing my light square bishop outside the pawn chain before I play e6.

However I recently saw the game Bogoljubov vs Capablanca, New York 1924. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1030787

After I saw the way Capablanca showed in this game I wanted to try it so I investigated this variation a bit more and found out it was the mainline of the Colle-Zuckertort, and that if you develop your bishop outside of the pawn chain against the Colle as I've been doing, you're playing an "anti-Colle system". I guess this is sort of like playing an Anti-Sicilian as White, the implication being you're ducking the mainline.

Mainlines are generally regarded as best, is that the case here or did they become the mainlines just because Capablanca played it? Also, after the suggested improvement for White on move 12 in the mainline, c3 instead of Nf3, what are some ways Black can defend against the lumbering but dangerous Colle attack of f4, rook lift, queen over to the kingside etc. There are attacking motifs of the Colle-Zuckertort like different bishop sacs and things, so what are some defensive motifs for Black? How can Black fend all this off?

Any more details on that Chessmicky?

It's pretty strange logic because the colle-Zuckertort is not considered very "main-line" in any variation. Sometimes black has played e6 early to keep flexible in repetoire for other choices by white. Anyway Eingorn covers this opening in "Solid repetoire for black". An idea he mentions is Bogolijubov's manovere where meet Ne5, Nc-e7, then after f4, Ne4, and ne7-f5.

Against Bf5/Bg4 white's best is probably giving up playing in colle fashion, and playing c4 leading to some sort of slow slav.

Thanks TwoMove, I'll check out that book.

As far as mainlines, the Colle books for White say playing e6 and locking in your bishop are the mainlines, and the  books actually seem to think these are good line for Black. One book said something like "at club level you may see Bf5 or Bg4 but if you're up against an experienced or booked up opponent they'll probably use the mainlines."

The thing is I don't really understand why the mainlines are better, perhaps it's that in playing Bf5 or Bg4 White can exchange this for a knight and have the bishop pair.

Thanks for posting your game, that's one I'll put on the study list. Hey, I saw one of your other games in a chess book on the Scotch Four Knights. I was flipping through it and I was like "it's Pfren".

As for the Colle-Zuckertort, all of the books I've read for White so far suggest that in the Bogoljubov vs Capablanca game there's an improvement for White on move 12. They all suggest 12.c3

Here's a game where Summerscale plays 12.c3 and goes for a kingside attack. He included part of this game in his book (without showing the end or result).

http://68.169.60.53/public/game.jsp?id=3012531605.405205.17950720.19360

He lost the game, but feels that White has a + after move 25. The attack does look really scary. But this is kind of why I want to play this variation. One of the joys of chess I think is when someone is attacking you and you find ways to frustrate them and make it backfire on them, just like the the Roadrunner vs Wile E. Coyote.

I'll be checking what GM Avrukh has to say about this variation.

It seems that Eingorn and Avrukh are covering the same position. The Bogolijobov manovere is playing 10...Ne7 in the game mentioned above, and is designed to discourage white from playing f4. Also mentions that black can calmly continue developing with 10...Rc8 and exploit  the loosening of the position after 11f4, analysisng lines similar to the game.

Hm good idea. I may just try that.

As for the Qc7 winning a tempo on e5 to play Nb4 idea, Summerscale said this was a "tough nut to crack" but intuitively it seems dangerous to me and when I read that I thought Summerscale was using reverse psychology because he wanted people to play that against him. It seems dangerous because Black is moving a knight three times to trade off a bishop that's moved once. Meanwhile White is getting their act together on the kingside with the rook lift and pawn storm and all that. I  was just looking at one of Yusupov's games a few days ago where someone played that against him and lost. It was this game

http://68.169.60.53/public/game.jsp?id=4618777.1004000.24762880.25182

Though now that I relook at it I note that it did seem double-edged. Black didn't get checkmated and Yusupov didn't even convert the attack to a material gain. He ended up getting a protected passed pawn later and this is how he won, but it doesn't look like this occurred as a direct result of the attack. Still the kingside attack looks very scary, but scary is often fun. Especially when you make your opponent look like Wile E. Coyote. I love how Summerscale vs Thompson ended. The h-file that White opened hoping to checkmate Black is ultimately used by Black himself with the manuever Kh7-Rh8-Kg8+. Maybe Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny is a better comparison, because it's often things going wrong on their own that messes up Wile E. Coyote, but with Elmer Fudd Bugs Bunny is  causing all the backfirings by outthinking him, and that's more what chess is.

I'm going to read both of them, and hopefully even find some more sources about this variation. At first I thought playing e6 against the Colle was bad, but now that I'm finding out all the typical plans and ideas for Black it seems very attractive.