zukertort is better imo, a little more ambitious.
colle or colle zukertort
Sort:
FirebrandX wrote:
Depends on your tastes, but one could argue the CZ is more hell-bent on storming the kingside. I personally play the CZ as a transpositional weapon whenever black doesn't want to cooperate in a Nimzo-Larsen.
I play 1...d5 and 2...Bg4 against the Larsen, good luck in transposing to anything decent :)
Jan 23, 2013
0
#4
I played the C-K back then with the idea of trading pieces immideately to an endgame (or a middlegame with less pieces) . Play the C-K for a while and you will see my point, and how blood stained that e4 square is. if they dont trade, go play e5 with a chance of a promising Kside attack with the colle sac (Bxh7) or calmly relocate your pieces to the Kside.
I never played the C-Z though.
Ok but you can't claim to be better there. Not even if black played simply 1...Nf6 2...g6 3...Bg7
In my opinion Larsen = giving up any opening advantage as white.
giving up the opening advantage we'd probably lose 8 moves later anyway, lol.
Is this Zukertort the same player Anderson gave a rook and drew? Without games your just talking theory.
players who use the same setup against everything. tell me, do these people even exist? I don't think they do. this is always used to mock colle players i've noticed
Jan 23, 2013
0
#9
I prefer the Colle Koltanowski and use the Phoenix attack if the position warrants. Just my preference though.
Hi all
Is the colle or zukurtort variation worth a go. And any hints on the best way to play it