torre attack is definitely a better choice
colle and torre at peace
Sort:
chesscrazee wrote:
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.
tigergutt wrote:
i think colle is more dangerous now that the phoenix attack was discovered.
Yea its really awesome.
tigergutt wrote:
i think colle is more dangerous now that the phoenix attack was discovered.
Can you post a game with the phoenix attack it sounds really interesting
timeless_thoughts wrote:
tigergutt wrote:
i think colle is more dangerous now that the phoenix attack was discovered.
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.
chessmaster102 wrote:
tigergutt wrote:
i think colle is more dangerous now that the phoenix attack was discovered.
Yea its really awesome.
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?
Estragon wrote:
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.)
bresando wrote:
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?
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.
Krakov wrote:
Estragon wrote:
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.)
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 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.
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."
Having an attack is not the same as having an advantage. When White accepts the Smith Morra Gambit, he has the former without the latter. Plus, the K-P does give White a pretty brutal attack.
Pellik said:
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.
Let's stop right there, because you are using vague language. You speak of the need to "know" these systems.
Note that there are two degrees of freedom here. First, there is the difference between "knowing" an opening and being familiar with a few strategic themes or ideas. Second there is a difference between a broad system (like the ones you mentioned) and a specific line to deal with a specific pet defense (like knowing how to react to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Bg4).
Together those differences create a vast chasm between what you said (White needs to know all these systems) and reality.
Pellik said:
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 look into the background of such games you'll find that often the average White player's rating is lower than the average Black player's rating, which skews the results.
Secondly, one simply cannot appeal to statistics to back up a claim about theoretical advantage.
Thirdly, this statement is simply untrue! If you look at what is still considered the main line of the C-Z, White wins 56% of the games in HugeBase [Position: r1b2rk1/pp2qppp/2n1pn2/3pN3/3P4/bP1B4/PBPN1PPP/R1Q2RK1 b - -]
In the new "Phoenix" Line of the C-K, White scores over 60%. (Albeit with a smaller sample than one would normally have for an opening.)
Opening statistics are just a poor way of judging the value of certain openings. For example, historically, the most common continuation in the C-K involves 10...Bd6. Yet if you look at games that use this move, White wins like 62% of them.
Pellik, just as Black can intelligently choose setups that avoid the Phoenix-attack (or other forms of the Colle), White can also deviate when Black does so.
In fact, I don' t know of a single, good Colle book that actually suggests White use the Colle against everything. Palliser doesn't do that, Summerscale/Johnsen don't do that. I certainly don't either.
And I disagree that the d4-sidelines do nothing to attack Black's development. In fact, the entire point of the C-Z is to make Black's QB worthless. I wrote extensively about that in chapter 2 of Zuke 'Em [see section 2, beginning on page 41].
If Black develops in such a way as to forestall problems developing his Bishop, or if he develops it too early, than White will switch gears and seek to exploit that choice.
A good Colle player should be playing it about 15-35% of the time depending on the local variations and your personal repertoire choices in certain lines where the Colle is reasonable but White has other options as well (some lines of the QID, for example).
AdvLegitimate wrote:
Im not so sure about the good colle player, once peopel garner some experience I think many move away from it in search of something with wider variety or more fireworks, leaving the general colle population predominantly lower players.
I'm trying to fix that :)
Plus, the Koltanowski-Phoenix has plenty of fireworks.
In any event, I think (hope?) there are plenty of improving players who, even after advancing, prefer to keep a slightly-offbeat, mostly position-with-a-touch-of-poison, low-maintenance repertoire...I guess time will tell.
AcivilizedGentleman wrote:
Zukertort wrote:
AdvLegitimate wrote:
Im not so sure about the good colle player, once peopel garner some experience I think many move away from it in search of something with wider variety or more fireworks, leaving the general colle population predominantly lower players.
I'm trying to fix that :)
Plus, the Koltanowski-Phoenix has plenty of fireworks.
In any event, I think (hope?) there are plenty of improving players who, even after advancing, prefer to keep a slightly-offbeat, mostly position-with-a-touch-of-poison, low-maintenance repertoire...I guess time will tell.
Why? Why are you trying to fix that? Surely there are way more interesting systems to look at if you want dynamic play (hedgehog for one)
I don't think if you're a chess writer (or aspiring chess writer), you want to take on the hedgehog any time soon. You're just going to get blasted for the effort and wind up looking silly relative to Shipov's still-fresh masterpiece.
I think it's awesome that a good amateur player/writer is tackling the Colle. Doing for it what whatshisname did with the Fascinating King's Gambit and the KG for the Creative Attacker books several years back.
Would still love to see somebody make a run at the Stonewall Attack. For my dollar, there's no opening where a sub-2000 player is less likely to blunder strategically or tactically in the opening, nor where he's more likely to be able to understand the plan moving into the middlegame. It offers black easy equality, but so does every other opening in the hands of anyone who doesn't make a life out of chess.
there are alot of chess hustlers I know who critize me for breaking 1700 OTB and still play the colle faithfully cause they think it not to be dynamic at all yet they can't deny the fact that once a attack in the colle starts its near impossible to fend off alot of times the only time I see the colle lose is when I miscalculate but not misevaluate.
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.