Colle System or London?

In a contest between "Colle and shoot myself" I'd be reaching for the gun.

London cause of Jobava

What main line are you talking about? (honestly asking not trolling) 

I play the Colle. You have to learn both the Zuckertort and the Koltanowski... Black can thwart one, but in doing so allows the other. At my level... if people respond 1...d5 people tend to avoid the Colle all together and go for either a Chigorin (which isn't all that great of an opening) or an Anti-Colle... without getting into the minutia if Black plays the pawn to c6, one has to play the Slav e3 var... and that is a true mainline used by a plethora of respectable GMs. 

So what Colle mainlines give Black 53% win ratio?

The Koltanowski

Where Black plays Nbd7

Where Black plays Nc6

(I'm going assume you are referring to this mainline, as most people do when discussing the stats with the Colle . After 10...h6 (Only reached a handful of times in elite games... super complex and unclear positions arise. "The position is absolutely identical to a variation from the Anti-Meran System 1.d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. Bd3 dxc4 8. Bxc4 0-0 9. 0-0 Qe7 10. h3 e5 With reversed colors and with an extra tempo for the first player, who is now playing the Anti-Meran as Black.  imo NOT enough games have been reached in this very complex position to formulate a concrete analysis, If your are playing White (as I do) I'm shooting for a practical advantage in being familiar with known positions stemming from 11.Bc2 or 11. b4 (Let me note ... At my level... on the internet, one guy got to this position and was flagged as cheating! lol No one has come remotely close to this position) Then there is Wei Yi vs Vidit Santosh Gujrathi (2024) Tata Steel Masters (2024), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 13, Jan-28 Colle System (D05) · 1-0

Two super elite GM's playing a must win game & Wei YI essays a Colle, and plays the Koltaowski Var!!! and Gujrathi plays the Nbd7 var and not the Nc6 var. why?? AND.... Wei Yi had to have INVESTIGATED at the Crucial 11...h6 line and came up with something... (meaning white can play that position with confidence)

Black plays and early b7-b6

Black plays an early c5-c4

The Zuckertort

Black plays an early c5-c4 

Black plays Nc6

Black plays Nbd7

Black plays Bd6

Black plays b6

One practical advantage of the Colle - not pronounced "Collie" BTW - is that it is much rarer these days than the London System. There is also of course the Colle-Zukertort, where white fianchaettoes his queen's bishop.

After move 3 every option for white is already losing badly by the numbers at master level... and if black knows the moves it gets much worse from here. Whites bishop is locked in for no real benefit. There's not even much complexity for black to contend with, just simple developing moves and he's fine. Black has everything he could ask for in an opening... I just don't see why you would play this over all the alternatives that exist for white... if you want to be unique play the nimzo larsen, the bird, or the chigorin. If you want an opening that trims down theory and works well against 1... d5 play the london. If you want to troll people play the Polish. Colle does not even troll well.

Kings indian

(just a good opening)

Oh darn...I was hoping for something concrete...rather than an subjective opinion.

SO The Colle became popular in the 1920s and 1930s because every 3rd move he is loosing badly???

Truth is the 2700s of the that era didn't know what was better 1.d4 2.c4 & Nc3 vs 1.d4 2.Nf3 & 3.e3... paraphrasing a quote from John Cox book " Dealing with d4 varients ... & if they didn't know, then subjective opinion doesn't really matter, right?

Why would Wei Yi an elite 2700+ GM play the Colle Koltanowski late in a tournament in a must win situation if by move 3 he was loosing badly in every varation .

If you want something concrete just drill down into any variation, they're all bad after 3... c5. Show me something good after 3... c5. Why would you choose to play a semi-slav if you're white, that's just a grinding game where your pieces get backed up, you maneuver and trade off pieces and hope for the draw, that's not how you play white, you are just tossing your advantage and winrate out the window. 
This isn't the 1920s, we have engines and databases that help us figure out what the good moves are.
Firstly, online games are not must-win situations... when choosing a main repertoire you are interested in its winrate, not ensuring a win in a must-win situation. So that right there just dispenses with your argument. The Colle is better in a must-win situation than as a main repertoire, but it still isn't great at winning. But there are thousands and thousands of games played by 2700+ GMs in important situations, the fact you have found a few Colle games played by top GMs in important situations is not proof in itself this is a good opening - the overwhelming majority of GMs did not choose the Colle, and for all you know there was some particular reason the particular player felt the Colle was appropriate - he could have assumed his opponent would play a line played in the past against the Colle he could prepare deeply against, or something like this... there's no telling really.
Bottom line is the winrates are already terrible by move 3 and get much worse quickly as you go deeper and black knows the moves. You can try to argue winrates aren't the most important thing, but if I'm at a 10%-20% disadvantage in the winrate as white I'm just looking for something else, you can do you though. And the opening ideas are also just bad regardless, you only lose pressure by blocking in the bishop that early, you are not black and should not make this compromise, and blacks development is very straightforward.

This is subjective opinion.

ibrust wrote:

If you want something concrete just drill down into any variation, they're all bad after 3... c5.

Really.....??? From Chessgames data base The Zuckertort 4. b3 55% 1-0 16% 1/2-1/2 28% 0-1 And .....   The Koltanowski  36% 1-0 28% 1/-1/2 35% 0-1 I don't know what you are talking about because that's average stats with the Koltanowski for an opening. There are good and bad lines in any opening.

(but let's keep going)

Why would you choose to play a semi-slav if you're white, that's just a grinding game where your pieces get backed up, you maneuver and trade off pieces and hope for the draw, that's not how you play white, you are just tossing your advantage and winrate out the  

Obviously from the stats no one is throwing an advantage away. Certainly after 1...d5 playing the Koltamoski one is not aiming for a draw. Colle–O'Hanlon, 1930 the model game ... one is trying to blast the opponent off the board.

This isn't the 1920s, we have engines and databases that help us figure out what the good moves are.

I totally disagree... Why do you think the London is all the rage at the top? Before this sudden popularity, it wasn't seen at top level chess since 1900. It's exactly the data bases and the engines that is making the London playable... combined with the sophomoric opinions that it's a patzer opening and not to be respected. It wasn't till guys like Kamsky started racking wins (46% win rate it) that people started noticing it.

The Colle is no different. The databases and the engines are making lines thought to be bad, now playable... I'll cite Koltanowski NC3 main line as an example. After 10...h6 11.b4 or 11.Bc2 the practical chances for White (from computer analyses) puts the mainline back in business.

Firstly, online games are not must-win situations... when choosing a main repertoire you are interested in its winrate, not ensuring a win in a must-win situation. So that right there just dispenses with your argument. 

1st... from the stats of Chessgames Databas it's your argument that got debunked. 2nd, I'm not GM, I'm not an IM or a NM... I'm an average Club player (JUST LIKE YOU!!!) If you want an opening repertoire that you have to spend massive amounts of resources keeping it up... rock on. I don't. 3rd, Yusupov ranked No#3 in world during the mid 1980s (behind Kasparov and Karpov) did just fine using the Colle, and the Torre in his repertoire ... And don't get me going on Vladimir Kovacevic... Heck, Chessmetric has Colle and Koltanowski when they were playing the Colle ranked top 20 in the world. Bottom line opening choice are fickle and there is no evidence that backs up your subjective opinions

But there are thousands and thousands of games played by 2700+ GMs in important situations, the fact you have found a few Colle games played by top GMs in important situations is not proof in itself this is a good opening

Again you keep thinking you are a GM playing other GM's .. people at that level have multiple openings, switch them in and out to throw off any opening prep before every game. That is not an argument against the Colle. Yusupov used the Colle and did exactly that... (had it in a rotation with other 1.d5 openings) 

Bottom line is the winrates are already terrible by move 3 and get much worse quickly as you go deeper and black knows the moves.

Bottom line is I think you have opinions... I see only words. I see nothing in the form of concrete lines the refute the Colle. The Stats.. are not what you think they are. I given them!) And even if they were.. if the individual evaluations of the positions are solid (and they are as solid as other openings... if used correctly... i.e. not play in a wrote fashion, but deviating when needed, when prudent etc etc ... then if there was sub-par stats, you would have to look elsewhere for the reasons for the sub-par stats (out of fashion, stats taken before improvement implemented etc.. (but this isn't the case) Also do not think I am advocating using the Colle in wrote fashion, playing it against anything the Black defense with. I am not.

You're using the database incorrectly. If you want a serious reading on the winrate you need to either look only at master games, or filter the games by elo and look only at high elo games. You're looking at all games which includes low elo players. If you want to look at winrates of 1400 players be my guest, I'm sure the Polish has a great winrate at that level too, but this is not an indication that the opening is sound.

In reality white has a horrible winrate in both lines you've mentioned. I can show you screenshots proving as much-

4. b3 cxd4 5. exd4, 2200+ rapid on lichess, white wins 32% black wins 59% out of about 450 games. That is absolutely terrible for white: 

The masters database is even worse, *white wins 14% and black wins 53%*, I cannot think of any opening where white scores this badly at master level: 

4. c3 e6 5. Bd3 is likewise already losing for white at master level - 

Amongst lichess players it's better in this line for white... unless black knows the moves, then white is again losing.

All in all these are just terrible winrates for white. It's acceptable to play this sort of passive, grinding, backed up semi-slav type game as black... not as white.

Now, you are free to play the Colle - I really don't care what you play, tbh. What you cannot do is say that white scores well in the Colle, white does not.

Carry onward!

We are going to have to agree to disagree!

It's you who started citing stats after move 3! (who does that?)

Chessgames.com ... is mostly master and above game games. And.... I don't know about you, but I look at stats of specific positions... with the understanding of how I got there. Anything else is moot.

After this point.. one starts filtering by established theory

Example: Zuckertort

In this debate,  the only traction you have is the Koltanowski var Nc6 mainline, that's been under a cloud.. One should not play the Koltanowski if they don't understand Anti-Meran positions.

After this point in established theory Black is equal

That stated... analyzing the positions and working with Stockfish 16.1 A) confirming the position(s) are equal... and I have some decent ideas built off 11. b4 or 11.Bc2. I.e looking for a practical advantage in familiarity if anything.

Once again for the record... I am not a GM, IM or NM, I am a club player... who plays the Colle often. It's not my only opening, but I do like to play it.

You want to piddledink with an opening repertoire like a GM ... if that what you like about chess do it up.

I do not.

Any thinking person considers it worth noting that an opening leads to a 14%W vs 53%B winrate by move 4 at master level. And infact the winrate is almost as bad at 2200 lichess level. Which is just like 100 elo higher than where I'm at, and below where the OP is at. So why would I play this? The only reason I would play this is to learn to crush it better, then move on. But probably not even that, because it's pretty rare and not really worth the time.

The lichess database contains all master games from 1952-2022. Chessgames database stretches back to the 10th century and contains games from all FIDE levels. If your goal is to examine modern masters level games, or modern online games, you simply would not refer to the entire chessgames database. The lichess masters database stats do not lie.

With regard to the clips you posted - the b3 clips you've posted are only reached by black playing bad moves. 
For example, after 4. b3 cxd4 5. exd4, a move which is basically forced - 4. b3 was simply a useless move here. The problem is not one of knowing the position, it's just a bad position. Now Bb2 will simply block in your bishop, the diagonal has been opened for that bishop, it doesn't belong on Bb2. You've just wasted a move with b3... This move order will happen almost half the time, and it is terrible, white wins 18% vs 51% at master level. I will never play this, but you can if you want.

But for the zuckertort clips you posted - zuckertort is certainly better after c5, however you have to play 4. c3 here, not 4. Bd3. The line 4. Bd3 Nc6 is already -0.16 for white, it runs into 5. c3 Bg5 or 5. O-O Bg5 and the best move is literally to move your bishop right back again, 6. Be2. And if you try to play 5. b3 then just cxd4 exd4 and you're even worse off than if you'd played 4. b3, -0.23. And these are all natural moves for black. You cannot reach a good b3/Bb2 position as white after c5 without tolerating some horrible position if black plays correctly. 
But anyway, 4. c3 is not great either, the winrate here is bad even by your own evidence, you can actually see in your own clips that blacks winrate exceeds whites by a significant margin. It's worse in the masters database, but as I said in my post, below masters people screw up some of the sidelines here, and you may be able to play them. But if black plays correctly for a few moves... the position goes back to being terrible. Overall there are just much better openings you can play as white.

This might work at 1400, it could maybe kind of sort of half work but not really in a tournament setting must-win situation (where it doesn't matter if you lose, you just need to win)... it is not wise for players aspiring to climb high in elo, and certainly never as a main repertoire choice.

I'm willing to play equal positions as white if I'm getting something out of it, like pressure and a very sharp position... here white just has practically no pressure on black, and I'm just banking on black to play bad moves. I don't even think blacks moves are hard to find, either.

You don't have a very good argument, sorry.

Carry onward!

Now your just trying to get the last word..

Carry onward?

The beauty of Chess is we both can...