k123163 wrote:

All i know is that the King's indian defense has a pretty easy time against the stonewall.  All the black player has to do is prepare e5 and he has a pretty easy game. 

 your correct about kings indian against stonewall.  However playing the stonewall from a bird's move order 1.f4 is far more effective than playing it from 1.d4.  Not two many people play Kings indian aganist bird's opening.

knightassassin wrote:

k123163 wrote:

All i know is that the King's indian defense has a pretty easy time against the stonewall.  All the black player has to do is prepare e5 and he has a pretty easy game. 

 your correct about kings indian against stonewall.  However playing the stonewall from a bird's move order 1.f4 is far more effective than playing it from 1.d4.  Not two many people play Kings indian aganist bird's opening.

Speaking as a player who sometimes uses the Birds as a surprise weapon in OTB tournament play, there are many variations of the Birds which are far superior to the Stonewall. With good play from Black, the Stonewall offers no advantage to White.

AquaMan wrote:

David, any idea how soon the books on Zukertort + Barry + 150 will be released?  Is one of them a reprint of A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire, Summerscale?

AquaMan,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.

One of those books should be out in September. That assumes it makes its publication date. That book will be by Richard Palliser.

The other book I am not at liberty to describe because it has not been officially announced.

k123163 wrote:

Yeah, I actually was considering playing colle-zukertort as well and decided to change the system i play based on blacks play.  My intention is to do 1. d4 and 2. Nf3.  Then, if black plays d5 as a reponse i will play into the colle and if black goes for KID i will play to the london system. 

k123163,

Three problematic lines if you are planning that:

1. What do you do against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 g6! [Hard to play a London now]

2. What will you play against 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5!

3. If you are waiting until move 3 to play a London, you need to know how to respond to 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5.  The issue here is that White has an easier time playing a London with the move order 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5, (though in that line you also need to know what you are doing.)

None of these really let you get away with a Zukertort.

The StoneWall with White is a very solid opening.  Played correctly, sometimes White's attacks seem to come out of nowhere, especially with his forgotten Queen's Bishop lurking in the backfield.

Very Recently, the Palliser book's publication date was pushed back all the way to November 1. Bummer!

However, you can pre-order it now [rather than just signing up for an email notification.] Palliser's New d4 attacks book

 Not spending ANY time on openings is a guarantee that you'll never hit 2000.

I'm a player of the stonewall in speed games -- makes opponents think far to long on how to crack the opening and, though simple, works reasonably well to great against almost anyone <1800.

I am about 1800 and have just purchased the "attack w/ d4" Palliser book (my third of his) and it looks great.  Together with the possible future purchase of Zuke 'em, I think I'll be set.  I've read books on and played the London, Stonewall and Colle with reasonable success, but the lines are getting stale for me and I want to renew without a complete reworking of what's in the memeory banks!

One opening that hasn't been discussed, but I think even up to 2000 and likely further, is the Nimzo Larsen.  I don't see anything wrong with 1.Nf3, c5 (or Nf6 -- this idea carries through below) 2. b3!  It fits with the ideas of the Zukertort is some aspects and if you get the King's N to e5, playing f4 will put you back where you want to be, right?

I've got to confess that chuckg99's post is one of the most lucid I've read on this (or any other) site in some time...it really lays out a nice framework for a flexible approach during the first few moves -- it's going in the notebook.  Bravo.

As for playing 1.b3, my success (and games played) has been limited primarily due to the immediate response of 1...e5 -- those are just hard nuts to crack!  On the other hand, playing this against someone who likes the KID or just likes to tuck his King behing the turtle of N, B and 3 pawns is brutal for them -- it really takes the sting out of the dark square control that they are used to having.

But, with an early Nf3, the early ...e5 possibilites are more limited without ...d6, but again as chuck points out (when you read betwen the lines) you can always jump out with 3.d4 and change the direction of the game again (back towards a C-Z)!

I must recomend Odessky's book and the Jacobs/Tait book (I'll say the Odessky book is much more fun to read, while the Jacobs/Tait book is more of a tome on the subject) for those adventurers into Nimzo-Larsen.

For the record, I can't recomend 2.e4 or 2.d4 after 1. Nf3, c5 -- Benoni's are just strange unless you want to invest some serious time working out those kinks (which would be advantageous in the long run, but the time/effort ratio is out of whack, IMO) and the Sicilian is jsut a chase through the book lines for nearly everyone who plays them -- and I think I'd get an ulcer!

Best,

ZV

White Opening System Combining: Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack, Soltis. this is a great book it shows you the basic ideas for all of these openings. a good thing to do is switch back and forth between the openings so you can keep them both sharp. they both are fun openings to play and really good for king side attacks. if you would like to learn these i would suggest that you purchase this book it is great and cheap.

Somewhat controversially, I'm going to state that the Stonewall is not good chess.

White plays a sequence of moves that build a wall in the middle of the board and then turns his attention to an often crude kingside attack. The play is not dynamic or particularly exciting, and more to the point:

WITH GOOD PLAY FROM BLACK, THE STONEWALL GIVES WHITE NO ADVANTAGE.

Black can easily equalize against it. My best advice to give to those improving players who are looking to use the stonewall as a system to get them some quick wins against other players is to try to learn an open opening first, as it will give you a much better understanding of many chess principles. They say you cannot be a true chess player without having played the Spanish at some point, and whilst this may be an exaggeration, the sentiment - playing open positions, not just playing system openings and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake - is very respectable.

The C-Z, on the other hand, is a respected opening which gives White much more flexibility than the Stonewall, and is less weakening.

IMO, the Stonewall is only effective when Black plays 1...d5.  That's because an important strategic goal of the Stonewall is to plant a knight on e5.  If Black can play P-d6, then a key theme of the Stonewall is negated.  After 1 d4 d5 2 e3, White can play the Stonewall.  But after 1 d4 Nf6 2 e3 d6, the Stonewall is ineffective, and the Torre and London are virtually impossible to play since the QB is hemmed in.  And the Colle is also ineffective when Black hasn't committed to playing P-d5.  So, after 1 d4 Nf6, White should play 2 Nf3 if s/he wants to stay within the Stonewall, Colle, London, Torre repertoire. 

After 1 d4 c5, White can play 2 c3 and still keep all of his/her options open.  After 1 d4 c5  2 c3 cd  3 cd d5, the position is an exchange Slav by transposition.  Not exactly the most dynamic approach by White, but if we were after a dynamic approach, we wouldn't be playing the Colle, Torre, etc. repertoire in the first place, now would we?  :)

 I agree that the Torre Attack can lead to very dynamic games (after all, it IS called the Torre ATTACK), and in fact the Torre-Lasker game is one of most famous games of all time due to the fact that Torre sacrificed his Queen and then won oodles and scads of material using the "windmill" theme.  Having said that, I would be willing to wager a small sum that the Torre Attack is played primarily by "positional" players (e.g. Petrosian played in frequently).  What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure the Torre Attack would be the optimal opening for a player in a "must win" situation.  I personally like the Torre Attack, but after 1 d4 d5  2 Nf3 e6  3 Bg5 Be7, I believe that White's opening advantage is on the continuum somewhere between miniscule and non-existent.

But even if Fritz-8-Billion with it's 100-ply search engine thinks that the above position is "=", I still think that a player who regularly employs the Torre Attack will still win the majority of the games based on his or her familiarity with the strategic themes that typically result from the opening.

Re your "P.S.":  "Gambit" is (was?) the name of a chess book publishing house.  "The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack" does not imply that the TA is a gambit, or even "gambit-like" (gambit-lite?).

Another decent introductory book to the Stonewall Attack is Horowitz and Reinfeld's "How to Think Ahead in Chess."  The Stonewall is primarily meant for scenarios where black plays P-Q4, P-K3 as a pawn structure.  The Kings Indian defenses are strong against it.

If 1. P-Q4, N-KB3, all bets are off for white and it's probably stronger to play 2. P-QB4 than P-K3 and you're looking at one of the variations of the Gruenfeld or Queen's gambit.

If 1. P-Q4, P-Q4, 2.P-K3, B-B4, white will have to play the Queen's gambit because it's pointless for white to follow with 3. B-Q3 because black could reply ...BxB or ...P-K3 for a comfortable game.

Whoa there.

C-Z players should definitely not play 3.e3 there.

When playing any QP game, especially a Colle system, it is important to know when to switch out and make use of your opponent's deviation.  In this case your opponent appears to be steering into a Tarrasch defense, so all you have to know is how to take advantage of the non-standard move order.

Summerscale and Palliser suggest a line aimed at quick development that arguably earns White a small advantage (and, more importantly, is probably one Black is unfamiliar with.)

My book (Zuke-Em) gives a way to abuse Black's Tarrasch efforts by delaying Nc3, which can leave Black in a bind because he will want to play d4 [after some theatrics in the center make that possible], and this move will now not come with tempo against the Knight that [normally] is on c3.

If you play these QP systems as blind-fold methods of ignoring your opponent's moves, you are likely to get roasted. Instead, the C-Z forms a basis you build a repertoire around. If your opponent tries some pet defense, you figure out what is different than normal in the move order and figure out some way to make something from it.

 I just ordered your book...still working through Palliser.  1.c5 has always been a little troublesome for me -- now I've got at least two more options!

I hope you like it. I have another once coming out next month.