Help with Cramped Position

I get a cramped position when my opponent pushes his queenside pawns early in the opening. Any suggestions?

Here's an example.

I placed a similar topic post on Sept 7^th in General Discussion and got a very nice answer.

Try to locate it. Its name was "Tied Up Games"

Bye.

Thank you. I'll take a look at that post.

This post has been viewed about 30 times with no replies. I'll give it a bump with one of my own live chess games where I played the Colle system as White and my opponent cramped my queenside by playing a7-a5 and b7-b6. I didn't have a good counter plan for this early queenside expansion and lost to a back rank mate.

What is a good response to Black's a7-a5 and b7-b6 moves? My position was fast becoming cramped.

in the first game, white (you?) probably sensed the trap coming, but you could have avoided it by playing 9. Bd5 instead of 9. a4.  i would not have expected a4 to prevent the trap and gives you only one bad escape square.  if not 9. c4 would have stopped the trap and given your bishop access to a better square at c2. 

in the second example it seemed like it was your opening more than your oppenent that closed your position. 

The first example was not a real game. In the second game I am using the Colle System. Is that a closed system?

I'm not that familiar with the Colle System and its ideas but looking at it, 3.c3 just seems to invite trouble. The reason an early c4 is played in so many queen pawn openings is partly to take a good share of the queenside.

Move 9 - here I would maybe have played c4. Or even b4 perhaps. Maybe you just don't like moving your pawns, but look for ways to use them to control the squares Black controls with his pawns. Maybe go for an early a4 yourself, contesting b5 a little.

i don't know many openings, but it seems like building a little pawn fortress and having all your pieces behind it (ok, except the one knight) is pretty closed.  is cramped a better word? 

I remember the terminology now. Basically, 1.e4 games are open and 1.d4 games are closed.

Wiki

Double King Pawn, Symmetric or Open Games (1.e4 e5)
Single King Pawn or Semi-Open Games (1.e4 other)
Double Queen Pawn or Closed Games (1.d4 d5)
Single Queen Pawn or Semi-Closed Games (1.d4 other)

Wiki does not speak too kindly about the Colle System

Ignoring Black's responses for the time being, the typical plan is as follows: 1. d4 2. e3 3. Nf3 4. Bd3 5. 0-0 6. Re1 7. c3 8. Nbd2 9. e4, with White re-arranging his move order appropriately. It is a perfectly solid scheme of development, but, inflexibly applied, it cannot offer more than equality against a vigorous Black response. It may be a good tool for avoiding book variations, for Blitz play, or for forcing opponents to think for themselves early on. These days it is considered totally innocuous, and is rarely seen at Master level or above.

Below is the Colle setup. If you can push the e-pawn to e4, the game can go pretty well. I used to play and enjoy the Queen's Gambit.

When I play 1.e4, my favorite opening right now is The Danish Gambit.

One game with The Danish Gambit where a 2600 beats up on a 2100 in blitz. It can be a wild game.

Yeah, if I was you, just scrap the Colle. I have had no problems playing against it.

In that second game, that is not the classical Colle opening move order. It ends up as that opening through transposition though. I played around with the Colle quite a bit, though I'm nowhere near an expert on it. It is an opening system that is pretty easy to learn but isn't really that strong, for the most part (though, there are always exceptions).

I normally only would play c3 if black was threatening the Bishop on d3 by pushing Nc6->Nb4 or c5 and possibly looking at c4 after that. Gives the Bishop room to move back along the b1-h7 diagonal. Normally you would develop the Bishop to d3 and the Knight to f3 first. c3 that early doesn't really gain much in my opinion.

Also, I never had a lot of luck playing that against the fianchettoed bishop structure on black's Kingside. It is a perfectly playable game but you don't come out of the opening with anything special. Part of the aim of the Colle (and related openings) is to target the h7 square and that structure kills that.

To the OP: forgive me if I'm hallucinating but you know what looks interesting?  5 Bxf7+!?. after ...kxf7 6 dxe5! ( trying to directly take advantage of what's exposed with ...b5: directly by indirectly threatening a8 rook, and also using the extra development and central control due to black's two queenside moves) could follow, taking a second pawn, threatening Qd5+, and of course ...dxe5 would drop the queen. So black can play something like 6...Bb7 but then maybe 7 Ng5+ K moves and 8 e6 then, intending Nf7, very hard to defend. Black can play ...Nh6, but now the g5 knight is sitting pretty. Then white can play 9 Qf3, probably threatening Nf7 at the very least taking up more space, then castling, Rd1 and a central breakthrough with e5. In fact even the very simple 7 exd6, following the basic rule to open the position when up in development, seems effective, as ...cxd6 or ...Bxd6 can just be met by e5.

As a rule of thumb if I want to stop a Q'side pawn avalanche i push my own Q-pawns. 

Also, 3 Bd4 invites pawns to come and harass the bishop.  The old adage 'develop knights before bishops' is often sound advice and in this case playing 3 Nc3 or 3 d4 would have contained his queenside much better I think.

You are not hallucinating, it's just that in the first example game that I posted, based on real games I see, Fritz does not suggest 5.Bxf7+. The stupid chess engine! It's simply no good for creating cool sacrifices, especially in the opening phase.

I like 5.Bxf7+. Here's the example game again with your idea of a bishop sacrifice.

Good points regarding move order and development. Thank you.

Move order does matter, and playing c2-c3 so early was a mistake.  Also, I'll try c2-c4, even though it's not part of the Colle System pawn structure, especially when my opponent does not place any pawns in the center.

Wiki's first three words regarding the Colle are key, and exactly what I was doing in that game.

Ignoring Black's responses for the time being, the typical plan is as follows: 1. d4 2. e3 3. Nf3 4. Bd3 5. 0-0 6. Re1 7. c3 8. Nbd2 9. e4, with White re-arranging his move order appropriately. It is a perfectly solid scheme of development, but, inflexibly applied, it cannot offer more than equality against a vigorous Black response.

Here is the beginning of the same game with the move c2-c4. White has a slight advantage according to Fritz.

The above opening (the first 8 moves) is very like a King's Indian Orthodox (3-pawn attack).  But e3 then e4 wastes a tempo.  Why not leave pushing the e pawn until later and play 2. c4? 

Excellent comment. Thank you.

To state that the thematic e3-e4 push wastes a tempo in the Colle system would be a refutation of that opening system. It's an excellent point to bring up. I don't know enough about the Colle to agree or not agree with that statement.

The Colle is not an opening, but an opening system. I would guess that e3 is necessary for the support of d4, since Bd3 takes a defender away from d4, that being the queen at d1.

Thank you. That makes sense.