Colle System

There is no "system", there is only a collection of variations. It makes no sense to discuss all of them at once without going into detail on any of them, there would be nothing to discuss.

lol, it requires too much thinking, and is therefore boring?

too much thinking = boring?

 After 1 d4 d5  2 Nf3 Nf6  3 e3 Bf5  4 Bd3 Bxd3, the best move for White here (according to GM Soltis) is 5 cxd3 (instead of 5 Qxd3).  White has the half-open c-file, and Black can't create counterplay via ...Ne4 and ...f5.  White probably has a slight advantage here.  Soltis recommends 4...e6 (instead of 4...Bxd3) in  this variation.  The tempting looking 5 Bxf5 exf5  6 Qd3 looks good for White, but after 6...Qc8 Black is fine, and White will probably never get to play his "thematic" P-e3-e4 push.

I think the colle is insanely boring, White purposefully murders his own queens Bishop on the second move. Why should white have to make such concessions in a game right from the opening? If your planning on playing the e4 advance move the Bishop first (London system or Torre Attack) for a more dynamic and interesting game.

I have never lost or drawn a game against the colle. It is simply too passive.

Interesting that Soltis doesn't recommend a transposition on move 3 into a QG, which seems the most logical way to proceed...

 I have a 1600 is rated friend and mentor who LOVES the Colle' opening.  I need to learn what to play against it for black because he gets all his ducks in a row with it STRATEGY< STRATEGY.  When I've played Colle system myself, I get in trouble if black exchanges out the avant d pawn -- the bishop no longer protected -- as well as with invasive knights and queen in moves 10-20.  What wins against Colle'? ( a counter system? -- minor sacrifices for a more open game?)

 Nothing "wins" against the Colle.  Black can probably equalize in many variations, but if your opponent is an avid Colle player s/he will probably still win a slight majority of the games even in the "equalizing" variations because s/he will probably have a better understanding of and familiarity with the positions likely to arise in the middlegame.

 In his book "White Opening System Combining the Colle System, Stonewall and Torre Attack", Soltis recommends the move order 1 d4 d5  2 e3.  If 2...Bf5, then Soltis does in fact recommend 3 c4.  The Soltis analysis I was quoting is from his book "Black Defensive System for the Rest of Your Chess Career."  In the book, Soltis explains why (after 1 d4 d5  2 Nf3 Nf6  3 e3 Bf5 4 Bd3) 4...Bxd3 is not the best move by Black.  As I recall, in the book he says that White's best move is in fact 4 c4.

 The Colle system certainly CAN be insanely boring.  But, if you look at the games in "Colle's Chess Masterpieces", you'll see that the Colle isn't NECESSARILY boring.  If White is willing to opt out of the Colle System in certain situations (like against the King's Indian Defense, for example), then s/he can create a very interesting game.  So-called "boring" opening positions can become quite dynamic ("explosive" even) in the hands of a creative player.

Secondly, after 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 e3, White has indeed hemmed-in his QB.  But it's almost certainly not going to be hemmed-in forever.  After P-e4 at some point, then the QB will spring to life.  I personally prefer the London System (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bf4) to the Colle, but one advantage of delaying the development of the QB is that Black usually can't create counterplay on the queenside as quickly as he can against the London System or the Torre Attack (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bg5).

Thanks ChuckyChess. This thread really needed more details about the opening that just rants of "I HATE THE COLLE" and "THE COLLE IS THE WORST OPENING EVER FOR WHITE."

I appreciate the heated debates, but seriously. This thread isn't for ranting, it's for discussion. I'm also wondering why people keep on quoting me and attacking me about what I wrote. This is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't mind "The Colle is not a very good opening in some cases/if Black defends well," but instead I get "LOL what you wrote is dumb."

Bottom line: Don't post here if what you have to say is off-topic.

(And this post will get flamed. I assure you.) 

C.J. Purdy writes that the colle  "system" is a safe opening for someone who doesn't want to get into trouble during the opening, and who doesn't want to spend alot of time on opening study.  He says after surviving  the opening then you can try for the win by a good middle and endgame....... please check out "action chess:Purdy's 24 Hours Opening Repertoire"  by C.J.S Purdy   commentary by R. Wieck.    Thinkers' Press  2000  The book is pretty easy to find i think.

i played before and is a dra opening and as you know this is not good for white

Thanks, Kissinger. 

Now, Ricardo33, you need to prove yourself and provide evidence to back up your claim. Without proof, I'm afraid I can't regard your opinion. 

 So, to be logically consistent, you also believe that GM Susan Polgar plays an opening that is "not good for White?"

My suggestion to the Colle System "nay-sayers":  Play over some of the games in "Colle's Chess Masterpieces", and then see if you still are of the same opinion that it is necessarily a "drab" or "boring" opening.

 I agree that "Action Chess" is a very good book.  He provides a relatively easy-to-learn oopening repertoire for both White and Black.  And as with any good book on the Colle System, he instructs the reader when it is advisable to transpose out of the Colle and into something else.  (For example, after 1 d4 Nf6  2 Nf3 g6, Purdy recommends fianchettoing the KB, and also playing P-c4.  Neither of those ideas are "Colle" moves.)

BTW, in the book Purdy recommends the Rubinstein Variation of the French Defense (1 e4 e6  2 d4 d5  3 Nc3 dxe4  4 Nxe4 Be7) against 1 e4.  Against most other openings he recommends that Black plays a Tartakower formation (...d5, ...e6, ...Nf6, ...Be7, ...O-O, ...b6).

Yusupov was the world's top five in 1995, and he has played the C-Z in over 50 games.

Much of the invective against the Colle is based on one of two errors:

i)Judging the Colle-Zukertort based on the setup of the Colle-Koltanowski

ii) The fact that many people play the Colle against everything instead of working it into a repertoire. If you play the Najdorf and have nothing prepared for Bb5+, do you blame the Najdorf or do you blame your own laziness?

As for the 3...Bf4 move (which is one of Black's best anti-Colles), White can transpose into a decent Slav line (that might be better than people realize... I published some analysis showing new ideas for White in those lines. It would be interesting to see how they play out in practice).

If I might make one more observation to all those people who say the Colle is so bad. The truth is that most strong players on Black avoid the Colle. I found 16 games by Kovacevic beginning with the position 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3, and in only one game did Black accept and go into the mainline with 3...e6. That observation is true in a wider sense when one considers all games by strong players.

If you want some honest discussion of this opening [the Colle-Zukertort], you might want to read the first chapter of Zuke 'Em, which is available by download on my Excerpts page.

 So apparently 3...e6 is not the main line at all then?

Your other points are fine, but this one looks a bit strange.

 You're right Scarblac. Grandmasters don't play e6, not because they wish to avoid the colle, but because they don't want to copy its failings.

 Please don't put words I didn't say into my mouth. I'm just pointing out that the mainline of an opening is the line that top players play the most. If top players hardly play 3...e6, it shouldn't be called the main line. Perhaps it used to be the main line, perhaps lower rated players play it a lot, but it's not the main line now.

Talk of "copying its failings" is entirely yours.