If you answer d5 to d4, you have to learn all of them.
Talk to these guys:
http://www.chess.com/groups/view/london---torre---trompowsky---colle
A recent book looks good :
London, Colle, Torre, or Trompowsky?
Sort:
FirebrandX escribió:
The correct answer is: None of the above.
If you're going to play 1.d4, don't be a wuss. Follow it up with 2.c4 when appropriate.
+100000000000000000000000000000000
MelvinDoucet wrote:
I started playing the Torre recently, never looked back.
Against the London, I merely play a symmetrical variation - 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Bf4 Bf5; thus I don't have anything to learn about this opening.
I don't even remember the last time I faced the Colle. It's a rare opening. The setup that comes to mind instinctively would be Nf6-g6-Bg7-d6-Nbd7-e5.
The Trompowsky is quite uncommon as well. If I ever encounter it in an official game I will pretty much improvise.
After 1d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Bf4 Bf5, due to white's extra tempo he will have an advantage after c4 and Qb3, exploiting black's weakness on b7.
patrick1748 wrote:
Which of these four openings should I learn? What are the pros and cons of each of them?
You should pick openings that appeal to you, not what others suggest.
Pulpofeira wrote:
FirebrandX escribió:
The correct answer is: None of the above.
If you're going to play 1.d4, don't be a wuss. Follow it up with 2.c4 when appropriate.
+100000000000000000000000000000000
and + 1 more. Although I do think it is good for begineers to learn why c4 is the move to try to gain an advantage after d4
I have played all of that crap in many blitz and rapid games, but very rarely in serious games, because I simply don't believe in them.
To be more precise, I have played the Colle against IM Paunovic, and the pseudo-Trompowski against GM Skembris. I can't recall other games where I used them- playing such crap has some logic against stronger players, when a draw is not a sin.
I almost got two points against these two titled players. Against Paunovic, I got nothing out of the opening (no big deal) but later stole a juicy pawn, only to lose it back at the end of zeitnot. A draw was agreed around move 48 or so.
Against Skembris, I had more luck- actually the whole game is not terribly instructive, but nevertheless funny.
No access to an engine, so I may be wrong, but I think move 15 is already too late for black. 15...b4 is certainly something to try if it works, but after 16.c4 white still has all his kingside ideas plus now black's center looks shaky.
If true, then 12, 13, and 14 are probably wrong, and I'd look for improvement on move 10 for black. Also moves 6 and 7 (played together like that) seem questionable to me. c6 seems to say he will play slow (no c5 yet) and 0-0 seems to give white fast ideas. Combined this means black will be stuck defending.
To be honest, I never passed the game through an engine. This would spoil a great deal of the fun I had when (re)playing this mess...
Pros (all of them): They have easy plans. In the Torre you can play for Ne5 and after Nxe5 take with the d-pawn and push f4 and play for a kingside attack in the lines where black plays d5 and e6. In the KID-type lines, play c4 instead of c3 and eventually play c5, and you often have great pressure on the queenside, especially in the London. See Finegold's video on this site on the Bf4 KID.
Cons: all of them give black equality. Under 2200 level, that's probably not too much of a problem.
Jun 25, 2017
0
#11
All of them make perfect sense. London is the best bet, Tromp second but Colle and Torre are also fine.
Has patrick1748 been here in the last 28 months?
Jun 26, 2017
0
#13
As someone that hates memorizing lines and stuff, I said no to the Torre because it requires Black to play ...Nf6 so I can't play it whenever I want. That would mean playing two openings. So lol no for me...
I said no to the Trompowsky because - you guessed it - ...Nf6. So lol no for me.
Then there's the Colle. I like the Jobava attack better. 
Which of these four openings should I learn? What are the pros and cons of each of them?