David Rudel's Zuke 'Em and the Zukertort-Phoenix Attack

I have just bought David Rudels Zuke 'Em book and am about 85 pages into it but I am more than a little skeptical about the variations he gives, particularly the Zukertort-Phoenix Attack. Up 'till where I have got to in the book it seems like he has been quoting other books lines and using game statistics, which is fine by my me (it means I don't have to buy the other Colle-Zukertort books). However the fact that he developed the Zukertort-Phoenix Attack and he is not a GM or even a titled player makes me a bit skeptical about how good it really is. Also he says that no one has played this variation before but it sounds too good to be true! How could have hundreds of Colle-Zukertort experts miss this (fairly simple) line?? btw if you don't know the line I am talking about here it is

Basically it is a semi-slav Meran variation reversed where whites DSB is not blocked by c3, White has developed his bishop whereas Black would have developed their knight and White has used his extra move to castle.

These differences are very interesting/exciting to someone who knows the Meran variation of the Slav but I would like to hear some objective views on this line, because no games have been played with it before we can not see if white actually does well in this line.

Marcus

the final position looks good for white, but if I was black i would have developed differently.

Against the Zuck I play b6, so that I can recapture on c5 with the pawn discouraging white to make the exchange in the first place because I would be getting a strong centre.

I slow down the development of the b Knight and instead I activate my lsB putting it on b7 (where it controls e4).

Lastly my personal opinion is that the dsB is better placed on e7. If I'm really annoyed by your dsB I can always play Ne8 and Bf6 to trade them off.

(edit) @ plutonia

Those sorts of offbeat and slightly passive lines are the reason I play the Zukertort :') I would simply play Ne5, f4, Rf3-h3(or g3) and create an attack against your king. Still I'm pleased that you think that this line is good for white

I have never really played these sorts of positions, and I can't tell you the nuances of this opening. However, I can tell you that dxc5 has been played by multiple people 2400+ in correspondence chess. However, a quick glance at the position, assuming everything up to dxc5 is mainline, shows me that dxc5 does seem to be a great move.

Sorry pfren, I had not seen your comment when I last posted. And "The bad thing is that the guy does no know chess"?? lol! Do you think his analysis is bad then or do you mean that because he is not a titled player or does not have a good rating (I don't actually know his rating) is the reason he 'does not know chess'? 

Also pellik, I think I've got to stand up for the Zukertort, I think White gets a good game after both Bg4 and Bf5. The only line that is slightly worrying that I have found is the Janowsky-Larsen variation (3...Bg4 and 4...dxc4) although white stills gets a slight edge and it's fairly unknown to  at my level. Also taking on d4 early in the game is fairly well known to be bad for Black, this allows white some different and creative options because white gets the semi-open e-file which is usually better than the semi-open d-file. Usually Black only takes on d4 when dxc5, Bxf6 and the doubling of Blacks kingside pawns are threatened. Thanks for your views on the position though.

Also thanks for that info Bossologist, Rudel mentioned in the book that he found one game where 8.dxc5 was played but white did not play 9.a3 Also what I posted was the mainline (after 5.b3) according to the chess.com Game Explorer.

Im pfren, white has an aesthetically pleasing position :) that's something right? haha

So according to everyone, Rudels Zukertort-Phoenix Attack is okay? What of Rudels suggestions should I not trust? Is his idea against the Queens Gambit Reversed not very good? I have his other book Zuka and hae heard already that his 'Dangerfield Attack' is questionable

And also Rudel reccommends c4, transposing into a Tarrasch against an early c5

What would Koltanoski do??  (WWKD).

anyone?

Of course I have a system against that kind of attack:

There are some other lines of course, white playing Qe2 to push e4 iirc, but I feel can stop the kingside attack in all cases.

Honestly I don't have much consideration for all these "systems" with d4, one of them being the Colle. I feel that black equalizes easily if he knows a bit of theory. Sure these systems can be really effective if black doesn't have some lines ready (in some games I got pounded) and of course if you're a stronger player you will win. But imo the only real try for an opening advantage is with 2.c4.

Think plutonia's suggestion of playing b6 and Bb7 early is perfectly ok for black. Then personally would play active Bd6 instead of Be7. Black has plenty of resources against Ne5 etc. They are very well known positions, reverse of e3 Queen's Indian. Don't think it is very critcal opening theory, it will be decided by who knows the middle game plans better.

plutonia, I have faced that system quite a few times OTB and had very good results with 10.Qf3! stopping Ne4 and white can follow up wth Qh3. If Black then tries Ne4 white can play f3. This is reccommended by GM Nigel Davies in his Chess Mentor course 'Understanding the Colle-Zukertort'

Think something like this should give black equal chances.

I just play Ng5, Nxe5 and f5:

Tell me how you would continue/how you could improve white's play.

Also note that you have it relatively easy against me that I play 2...e6 because I'm a NID/bogo player. If you go against a 1...d5 player he will most likely play Bg5. He pins your knight and when you break the pin he takes it.

I feel black is under pressure only if you get your knight on e5 supported by the other knight, but of course black won't allow you to connect your knights.

Basically against both of your systems I will probably play something a lot like this...

... And not go for the kingside attack (strictly speaking I play the Rubinstein Attack and not the Colle Zukertort although no ones knows the Rubinstein Attack now).

Although in your b3 variation plutonia, Qh5 followed by h4 renewing the threat on h7 seems very hard for black to deal with. 

Here is another game with a similar variation. No doubt all of these variations give Black equality but white virtually always is the one attacking/with the initiative and few players (particularly Nimzo-Indian players) can honestly say they enjoy defending.

And anyway, no one can fault Rudels suggestions then?

Quoting games were significantly higher rated players won doesn't prove any opening advantage. The fact that Yusupov plays it quite a bit, at least against e6 lines, shows it is a reasonable opening. Black can avoid d4xc5 with early b6, if bothered by it. 

This shows technique of finding games to support own point of view. In game showed were Yusupov won, he was on the way to being rated third highest player in world. In game I showed more of a trainer playing a slightly higher rated player.

In position were 10...c5xd4 played think it is better if white had played a3, instead of f4. Not sure if you are bothered by dispruting nb4 though. Eingorn thinks 12...Ne4 instead of Rc8 is very nice for black. In general don't think black has much to fear in this setup. Has played classical moves and peices are on active locations.

Is Rubinstein system playing d4xc5 when applicable or something else?, am not very sure myself.

Yusupov must have got his theory mixed up .. I think 9. f4 is quite weird, in most games white tries to complete his development before starting a kingside attack. 9. Bb2 is far less commital, followed by a3.

Also with the Rubinstein Attack (I think, I might not be correct) that white does not immediately play Ne5-f4-Rf3 etc, instead playing in the centre or on the queenside but with a Zukertort-type structure