Criticism of opening "systems"

1) There is nothing to critizise with KIA or Colle at your (our) skill level really. Mostly a basic tactic understanding will bring us more benefit than seeking deep opening knowledge. So on your plus side you have a Swiss Army knife you can use variably by now whenever you feel like "not thinking outside the box" or inside your comfort zone.

2) However it does limit your ability to learn. I am at a stage where I start grasping positional play. I am more concerned about early decisions leading to positions I feel comfortable with than abt 20 years ago. But actually knowing positions I liked took a whole lot of time. My type of comfortable positions changed (and will change) too.You be missing out on that one in the long run.

It's always a trade off

When you're starting, you should first find your preferred "style", and it can be closed positions or open positions. If you like a more tactical game, calculating combinations and variations, you should go for open positions, and you should study e4 openings and watch games of players who play this style. If you like a more positional game, conquering small advantages step by step, no hard calculations all the time, you should study d4 openings and watch games with that opening.

 

After you study a bit how to play an opening with white pieces, you should shift to black. Choose between numerous defensive possibilities that fits your style best, and pursue them the same amount you gave to white pieces. Then shift again to white, and keep the cycle until the rest of your life! That's one of the beauties, it's a stimulating hobby that you can practice at any age.

 

Most important of all, you must respect your opponent all the time. You can't enjoy the game without a great sense of respect of the human dignity. You should not think of the game as a way to humiliate your opponent and show your strength. You should think of it as a way to have pleasure and a way to allow your opponent the same pleasure (see more about the human dignity principle in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, by Emmanuel Kant).

In response to the OP, the main problem is that nobody at the 1400 level seems to understand that "Systems" are not "usable" in all cases.  They are not "catch-all" solutions.

 

Can you legally play the moves 1.d4, 2.Nf3, 3.e3, and 4.Bd3, without dropping material?  Sure, against 99.9% of anything Black plays.

Does that make it good?  Aboslutely not!  For example, little to no 1400 players undestand that the Colle System only works against lines where Black's Bishop is hemmed in by the e-pawn on e6.

 

For example:  

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 e6 - The Colle System is perfectly legit.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 - This move is not good at all.  The Bishop on d3 will just bite on granite, and the Bishop can still come out.  The Colle is total garbage here.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c6 3.e3 - This move may be ok, but if the Bishop comes out, White needs to play c4.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 or 3...Bg4 - These two lines are known as the "Anti-Colle".  White has nothing better than 4.c4.  4.Bd3 and 5.c3 are crap here!

 

So when people say that Carlsen played the Trompowsky, or Colle System, or London System, all of which he has played in the last 6 months, they are not pre-meditated.  The London fails against the Modern.  The Torre fails against d5-systems.  The Colle fails against systems where the Light Squared Bishop comes out.  The Trompowsky requires 1...Nf6 by Black.

 

If you truly understand all of these systems, they can be used as a potent weapon.  But if you think you can pick and choose just one of them, and use it against everything, and think you can succeed (beating a 1350 in one game is not success - improving to 1800+ is success), you are WRONG!

You have to start somewhere to learn about openings. It is sensible to make a quick survey of all the openings just a few moves deep. Not trying to learn them, but just to see the enormous range of possibilities, and to give you some thing to help you choose what to look at in more depth.

Well even if you have not done that, the  Colle is as good a place to start as any.  You can't learn everything at once so the sensible way to proceed is to learn as much as is useful at whatever level you are at, about one system, and start playing it. When you are comfortable with that system, add a second to your arsenal,  perhaps a related system.  You don't need many systems to be fully prepared for competitive play, just defences to 1.e4, 1. d4 and 1. c4, preparation as white with 1. e4, 1.d4 or 1.c4 and a bit of work on some of the less often seen possibilities.  (pfren gives good advive about starting with systems that are not too complex positionally) But limiting your knowledge to the minimum for competing successfully won't get you a broad education in the possibilities of chess.  

I reckon it is best to get experience in several very different systems early in your chess career rather than to start introducing completely new stuff when you are rated 2200 or 2300 and likely to be more worried about damaging you rating.

"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
The KIA is discussed in Winning Chess Openings by GM Yasser Seirawan.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf
It was part of a seven part series of chess books. Here is a review of three other books in the series:
http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_beginner/ev_winning_chess.asp?KATID=BO&ID=BO-Beginner
For more on the KIA, one could try The King's Indian Attack: Move by Move by Grandmaster Neil McDonald. Perhaps, it would be of interest to look at The Fianchetto Solution by Emmanuel Neiman and Samy Shoker.
https://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/9029.pdf

Some Colle-related books::
Starting Out: The Colle by Richard Palliser (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627040050/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen103.pdf
The Colle: Move by Move by Cyrus Lakdawala (2013)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627110453/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen169.pdf
First Steps: Colle and London Systems by Cyrus Lakdawala (2016)
Starting Out: d-Pawn Attacks by Richard Palliser (2008)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626165651/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen118.pdf
Zuke 'Em, The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized by David Rudel (2009)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627053117/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen130.pdf
The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black by Grigory Bogdanovich (2010)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627131000/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen143.pdf
A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire by Aaron Summerscale & Sverre Johnsen (2010)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627030157/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen133.pdf
The Moment of Zuke by Dave Rudel (2009)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627030157/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen133.pdf

Tbh White could just throw in c4 and end up playing low theory mainlines without actually knowing any theory anyway.

I don't see anything wrong with opening systems. To riff a variation of an older saying: before the middlegame, the gods have placed the opening.

pfren and ThrillerFan note that beginners lack positional sense and basic knowledge for systems. True. However, beginners have to play some kind of opening, and being beginners they will lack knowledge and sense to play that opening well, no matter what they do.

Maybe it's better to start with open games. That's the way I learned. I think open games are something you have to cover eventually.

OTOH it is easy to get blown away in open games. Plus all those books and articles make openings look intimidating. Maybe it's not bad to use a system as training wheels as you develop the rest of your chess game.

I'd say using a system depends on what kind of player you are, who you play, and what your ambitions are in chess. Whatever keeps you playing chess is my standard.

I am not very good so I just stick to the so called opening principles.

                            "Let you way be no way"

                                    Bruce Lee

TheBone1 نوشته: First off, I am around a 1400 here at chess.com.  I have been playing would I would say "more seriously" now for just over a year.  I played as a kid, but had no clue other than how to move the pieces, the objective, and basic tactics like how a rook can cut off the board...  I have gravitated towards the KIA as white, and I liked how it could give me some flexibility with the opening moves, and gave me kind of a roadmap.  I think I understand basics of opening principles in general...So, I also realize this topic has been discussed a lot... But what is the criticism of using opening "systems" like KIA and Colle (which I don't know, incidentally)... particularly for a player of my current skill level...  Am I limiting my ability to learn by using this type of system?

What fun is it to play e4 if you fall into all the traps? Why spend the time memorizing the 200 defenses against it when you could be improving and winning with the KIA? Your goal should be winning. If you want to learn new things, go to college.

Has TheBone1 posted in this thread since 2012?

Agreed

It doesn't hurt to begin with a System of related openings - especially if you learn the principles behind them because you can often apply them to openings your don't know (1. g3 or 1.b3, etc.).

You can always look into other openings, but don't spend too much of your time on openings.  It reduces time spent on the middlegame and endgame: tactics is where most improving players should be concentrating and the middle game is where it's at.  The NM's whose lectures I've attended generally say they are not experts in the openings: they only need to know enough to get to a playable middle game.

Most system books, like Andy Soltis' Black Defensive System for the Rest of Your Career, don't cover any one opening in tremendous detail.  For example, Soltis' book is built around the Caro-Kann vs 1.e4 and Slav Defense vs 1.d4 and both aim for a c6 & d5 pawn structure, getting your Queen's Bishop out to f5 or g4 and exchanging it so as to avoid a bad bishop when you play e6.  It hopes to establish a nice N outpost at e4 or d4.  The pawn structure and principles can be applied to many ususual openings as well.

If you wanted more depth, Cyrus Lakdawala has two excellent books, one solely on the Caro-Kann, another on the Slav, and both are in the "Move by Move" series where the reader (studier!) is asked frequent questions (Why was that a bad move?) or told to do certain exercises (Find a method for halting White's plan), then supplied extensive answers, all in terms of black's plan.

But is going deeper going to raise your rating as much as a good book on tactics?

I'm in the same relative boat: a 1377 player whose last OTB tournament was in 2000 and who knew enough to coach a high school team in the '90's to 3 consecutive county championships and 3rd, 4th, 5th in state in those years.  Now I'm trying to seriously look at improving my game: today there is SO much more training, playing, great software and other advice available I'm very hopeful!  Whether it's a straightforward book like Seirawan's Winning Chess Combinations or the 3-volume "Chess Visualization Course" tactics and understanding the structure they're built around (Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess), I want to see the combinations better and understand the relationships of the pieces better.

Tactics! Tactics! Tactics! THEN, I'll worry about an extensive opening repertoire.

 

As GM Daniel Henriksen says: He who knows the road, travels faster. There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning opening systems. In fact, if you don't know what to play it is a good idea to stick with something to get familiar with. The good thing about systems is that you can play it almost against everything and when you know the plans it is easier to play of course. 

Getting a playable middle game position is important for the aspiring player. Few things are more devastating than being much worse after a few opening moves and systems can help you against most players to get an ok position and maybe even more if they don't know it. Go for it!

Tactical players play 1.e4 - eg. Leko

Positional players play 1.d4 - eg. Topalov and Shirov.

This is nonsence. Either move can lead to any kind of play.

Here's an interesting bit from wiki on GM Koltanowksi, a 20th Century player.

Perhaps Koltanowski's most remarkable accomplishment was that he made his living entirely from chess. He wrote many books; his best-known work is Adventures of a Chess Master, published by David McKay Co. in 1955. In it, he recounts primarily his tours giving blindfolded simultaneous exhibitions. He also wrote books on the Colle System which he sold by mail order. He taught a system which would enable even rank beginners to get out of the opening with a playable game. This saved his students the trouble of memorizing vast amounts of chess opening theory. However, he never played this opening himself against strong opponents

There is something to be said for this approach. I don't think it's the answer for becoming a well-rounded player or an advanced one, but it is a way for new players to test the waters without having to worry about the complexity of the opening.

I often get the impression more experienced players forget how daunting chess can be for beginners.