Stonewall attack vs Colle-Zukertort - Chess Forums - Page 2

knightassassin

Jul 28, 2008

0

#21

k123163 wrote:

All i know is that the King's indian defense has a pretty easy time against the stonewall. All the black player has to do is prepare e5 and he has a pretty easy game.

your correct about kings indian against stonewall. However playing the stonewall from a bird's move order 1.f4 is far more effective than playing it from 1.d4. Not two many people play Kings indian aganist bird's opening.

schofio

Jul 29, 2008

0

#22

knightassassin wrote:

k123163 wrote:

All i know is that the King's indian defense has a pretty easy time against the stonewall. All the black player has to do is prepare e5 and he has a pretty easy game.

your correct about kings indian against stonewall. However playing the stonewall from a bird's move order 1.f4 is far more effective than playing it from 1.d4. Not two many people play Kings indian aganist bird's opening.

Speaking as a player who sometimes uses the Birds as a surprise weapon in OTB tournament play, there are many variations of the Birds which are far superior to the Stonewall. With good play from Black, the Stonewall offers no advantage to White.

Zukertort

Aug 15, 2008

0

#23

AquaMan wrote:

David, any idea how soon the books on Zukertort + Barry + 150 will be released? Is one of them a reprint of A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire, Summerscale?

AquaMan,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.

One of those books should be out in September. That assumes it makes its publication date. That book will be by Richard Palliser.

The other book I am not at liberty to describe because it has not been officially announced.

Zukertort

Aug 15, 2008

0

#24

k123163 wrote:

Yeah, I actually was considering playing colle-zukertort as well and decided to change the system i play based on blacks play. My intention is to do 1. d4 and 2. Nf3. Then, if black plays d5 as a reponse i will play into the colle and if black goes for KID i will play to the london system.

k123163,

Three problematic lines if you are planning that:

1. What do you do against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 g6! [Hard to play a London now]

2. What will you play against 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5!

3. If you are waiting until move 3 to play a London, you need to know how to respond to 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5. The issue here is that White has an easier time playing a London with the move order 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5, (though in that line you also need to know what you are doing.)

None of these really let you get away with a Zukertort.

Graw81

Aug 16, 2008

0

#25

.

BillyIdle

Aug 16, 2008

0

#26

The StoneWall with White is a very solid opening. Played correctly, sometimes White's attacks seem to come out of nowhere, especially with his forgotten Queen's Bishop lurking in the backfield.

Zukertort

Sep 23, 2008

0

#27

AquaMan wrote:

David, any idea how soon the books on Zukertort + Barry + 150 will be released? Is one of them a reprint of A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire, Summerscale?

Very Recently, the Palliser book's publication date was pushed back all the way to November 1. Bummer!

However, you can pre-order it now [rather than just signing up for an email notification.] Palliser's New d4 attacks book

Niven42

Sep 23, 2008

0

#28

drd wrote:

Spending time on openings before you hit Elo 2000 is a waste of time.

Not spending ANY time on openings is a guarantee that you'll never hit 2000.

ZeroVektor

Jan 7, 2009

0

#29

I'm a player of the stonewall in speed games -- makes opponents think far to long on how to crack the opening and, though simple, works reasonably well to great against almost anyone <1800.

I am about 1800 and have just purchased the "attack w/ d4" Palliser book (my third of his) and it looks great. Together with the possible future purchase of Zuke 'em, I think I'll be set. I've read books on and played the London, Stonewall and Colle with reasonable success, but the lines are getting stale for me and I want to renew without a complete reworking of what's in the memeory banks!

One opening that hasn't been discussed, but I think even up to 2000 and likely further, is the Nimzo Larsen. I don't see anything wrong with 1.Nf3, c5 (or Nf6 -- this idea carries through below) 2. b3! It fits with the ideas of the Zukertort is some aspects and if you get the King's N to e5, playing f4 will put you back where you want to be, right?

I've got to confess that chuckg99's post is one of the most lucid I've read on this (or any other) site in some time...it really lays out a nice framework for a flexible approach during the first few moves -- it's going in the notebook. Bravo.

As for playing 1.b3, my success (and games played) has been limited primarily due to the immediate response of 1...e5 -- those are just hard nuts to crack! On the other hand, playing this against someone who likes the KID or just likes to tuck his King behing the turtle of N, B and 3 pawns is brutal for them -- it really takes the sting out of the dark square control that they are used to having.

But, with an early Nf3, the early ...e5 possibilites are more limited without ...d6, but again as chuck points out (when you read betwen the lines) you can always jump out with 3.d4 and change the direction of the game again (back towards a C-Z)!

I must recomend Odessky's book and the Jacobs/Tait book (I'll say the Odessky book is much more fun to read, while the Jacobs/Tait book is more of a tome on the subject) for those adventurers into Nimzo-Larsen.

For the record, I can't recomend 2.e4 or 2.d4 after 1. Nf3, c5 -- Benoni's are just strange unless you want to invest some serious time working out those kinks (which would be advantageous in the long run, but the time/effort ratio is out of whack, IMO) and the Sicilian is jsut a chase through the book lines for nearly everyone who plays them -- and I think I'd get an ulcer!

Best,

ZV

atomichicken

Jan 7, 2009

0

#30

if black answers white's 1.d4 with ...d5, that's exactly what a Stonewall or C-Z player would love to see...while exactly what a Torre player DOESN'T want to see.

I only really read this part of your post, but can you just explain why you think d5 from Black would deter a Torre player? As a Torre player myself I love it when Black responds with d5, and if he doesn't know what he's doing, gaining control of e4 and e5 can be easy with such simple moves as Nd2, Bd3, Ne5 etc...

Most Torre players incuding GM Aaron Sumerscale and myself believe that after 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Ne4 is Black's only real chance at aiming for more than a passive, cramped position for most of the game, but I believe White still gets good chances after that with 4. Bf4 c4 5. e3 Qb6 (players nowadays are becoming more and more aggressive) 6. Qc1 is the mainline, but a new amazing continuation has been discovered 6. Nc3!? Nxc3 7. bxc3 Qa5 8. Kd2!? and incredibly White's King is believed to be safe in the centre while Black should come under strong pressure where ever he castles. Hardly anyone so far has been brave enough to try it, and who can blame them! It's certainly not for the faint hearted.

melzerh

Jan 7, 2009

0

#31

I don't think it is a waste of time I study openings, and I am only 1043 USCF

kungfoodchef

Jan 7, 2009

0

#32

White Opening System Combining: Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack, Soltis. this is a great book it shows you the basic ideas for all of these openings. a good thing to do is switch back and forth between the openings so you can keep them both sharp. they both are fun openings to play and really good for king side attacks. if you would like to learn these i would suggest that you purchase this book it is great and cheap.

Msho

Jan 7, 2009

0

#33

AquaMan wrote:

I'm breaking this out as a seperate topic, from my QP post last night.

I know these aren't the strongest QP openings, but can be effective if your opponent doesn’t know how to handle them, and can be fun for learning to build kingside attacks and mating nets.

For fans of this type of d4 openging, do you think there's any point in leaning the stonewall attack if I’m gonna learn the Colle-Zukertort. Do they compliment eachother? The stonewall seems to have two weaknesses that the Colle-Z doesn’t have; hole at e4 and the hemmed in Queen’s Bishop. Does the stonewall have any advantages over the Colle-Z? Perhaps the pawn on f4 in the stonewall has some advantages to offset the disadvantage of creating the hole on e4.

I'm aware of the following books on the Stonewall:

- The Stonewall Attack, Soltis. This is probably the best book on the subject, but about $50 US used.

- White Opening System Combining: Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack, Soltis. Will this give me a reasonable intro to the Stonewall? It’s only about $17 used.

I am going to buy the Colle-Z book, Zuke 'em, Rudel

schofio

Jan 8, 2009

0

#34

Somewhat controversially, I'm going to state that the Stonewall is not good chess.

White plays a sequence of moves that build a wall in the middle of the board and then turns his attention to an often crude kingside attack. The play is not dynamic or particularly exciting, and more to the point:

WITH GOOD PLAY FROM BLACK, THE STONEWALL GIVES WHITE NO ADVANTAGE.

Black can easily equalize against it. My best advice to give to those improving players who are looking to use the stonewall as a system to get them some quick wins against other players is to try to learn an open opening first, as it will give you a much better understanding of many chess principles. They say you cannot be a true chess player without having played the Spanish at some point, and whilst this may be an exaggeration, the sentiment - playing open positions, not just playing system openings and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake - is very respectable.

The C-Z, on the other hand, is a respected opening which gives White much more flexibility than the Stonewall, and is less weakening.

atomichicken

Jan 8, 2009

0

#35

schofio wrote:

Somewhat controversially, I'm going to state that the Stonewall is not good chess.

White plays a sequence of moves that build a wall in the middle of the board and then turns his attention to an often crude kingside attack. The play is not dynamic or particularly exciting, and more to the point:

WITH GOOD PLAY FROM BLACK, THE STONEWALL GIVES WHITE NO ADVANTAGE.

Black can easily equalize against it. My best advice to give to those improving players who are looking to use the stonewall as a system to get them some quick wins against other players is to try to learn an open opening first, as it will give you a much better understanding of many chess principles. They say you cannot be a true chess player without having played the Spanish at some point, and whilst this may be an exaggeration, the sentiment - playing open positions, not just playing system openings and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake - is very respectable.

The C-Z, on the other hand, is a respected opening which gives White much more flexibility than the Stonewall, and is less weakening.

Yeah, you are probably right IMAO. If Black castles Q-Side, White has to virtually settle for playing effectively without his c1 Bishop. It's obviously really solid, but if one is going to play the Stonewall, why not opt for a similar set up, but with all of White's pieces actively engaging in the battle? Can any Stonewall player better educate me? Perhaps an upside is it's possibly easier to learn than say the Torre, but in the long run I think that one of the SW's "bigger brothers" the Torre is objectively much stronger for players going for the full point as White. I haven't yet studied the CZ, so I can't really comment on that one, except at a 1st glance it also seems better.

knightassassin

Jan 8, 2009

0

#36

schofio wrote:Yes but the stonewall attack is not all about attacking someone's king. It is a defensive opening and therefore not for everybody. It can be and endgame players paradise though. A strong endgame player doesn't mind playing for fifty moves of a stonewall attack if they can get a slight endgame advantage and convert the full point.

Somewhat controversially, I'm going to state that the Stonewall is not good chess.

White plays a sequence of moves that build a wall in the middle of the board and then turns his attention to an often crude kingside attack. The play is not dynamic or particularly exciting, and more to the point:

WITH GOOD PLAY FROM BLACK, THE STONEWALL GIVES WHITE NO ADVANTAGE.

Black can easily equalize against it. My best advice to give to those improving players who are looking to use the stonewall as a system to get them some quick wins against other players is to try to learn an open opening first, as it will give you a much better understanding of many chess principles. They say you cannot be a true chess player without having played the Spanish at some point, and whilst this may be an exaggeration, the sentiment - playing open positions, not just playing system openings and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake - is very respectable.

The C-Z, on the other hand, is a respected opening which gives White much more flexibility than the Stonewall, and is less weakening.

atomichicken

Jan 9, 2009

0

#37

knightassassin wrote:

schofio wrote:Yes but the stonewall attack is not all about attacking someone's king. It is a defensive opening and therefore not for everybody. It can be and endgame players paradise though. A strong endgame player doesn't mind playing for fifty moves of a stonewall attack if they can get a slight endgame advantage and convert the full point.

Somewhat controversially, I'm going to state that the Stonewall is not good chess.

White plays a sequence of moves that build a wall in the middle of the board and then turns his attention to an often crude kingside attack. The play is not dynamic or particularly exciting, and more to the point:

WITH GOOD PLAY FROM BLACK, THE STONEWALL GIVES WHITE NO ADVANTAGE.

Black can easily equalize against it. My best advice to give to those improving players who are looking to use the stonewall as a system to get them some quick wins against other players is to try to learn an open opening first, as it will give you a much better understanding of many chess principles. They say you cannot be a true chess player without having played the Spanish at some point, and whilst this may be an exaggeration, the sentiment - playing open positions, not just playing system openings and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake - is very respectable.

The C-Z, on the other hand, is a respected opening which gives White much more flexibility than the Stonewall, and is less weakening.

It's true that some players may enjoy the 50 move "grind". But objectively, in what way does White set himself up well for the endgame? Rigid pawn structure that offers no flexibility, because of which white has to settle for a Bishop that for the most part of the opening through midgame is entirely out of the game. Consequently the rest of White's play becomes cramped, which no player at any stage of the game should be happy with, no matter how defensive. Also, the importance of piece activity applies as much for the Endgame as the Opening or Midgame. Not to mention the weakness on e4, which can't usually be exploited for a while if White plays it correctly, however it will remain a permenant weakness right through to the Endgame, when it can then become significant. One upside (admittedly it is a big upside) I can think of that a defensive player will be happy with is the obvious rock solid pawn structure one gains. However the same immovable pyramid of pawns can be gained with both the Torre and C-Z (slightly less so in the C-Z because of the absence of a pawn on c3 to further reinforce d4, although it's not significant), but largely because in both these openings White's DSB has an important role to play instead of just being forced to rest idly on c1 (In The C-Z from b2 it really helps soldify White's standard e5 knight. And in The Torre from g5 it will cause black real problems on his f6 strong Knight, usually to be exchanged to again solidify White's central control by eliminating Black's strongest minor piece for White's weakest (not a bad deal)) White gets more flexible play all round. White also gains very smooth development, great piece activity, and doesn't commit oneself so early into such a rigid structure to boot, while keeping all of White's solidity for the defensive player. That's why The Torre was a favourite of Petrosian, one of the best defensive players ever, and not the Stonewall . I may be wrong with all of this, but no one has proved otherwise to me so far.

Chuckychess

Jan 9, 2009

0

#38

IMO, the Stonewall is only effective when Black plays 1...d5. That's because an important strategic goal of the Stonewall is to plant a knight on e5. If Black can play P-d6, then a key theme of the Stonewall is negated. After 1 d4 d5 2 e3, White can play the Stonewall. But after 1 d4 Nf6 2 e3 d6, the Stonewall is ineffective, and the Torre and London are virtually impossible to play since the QB is hemmed in. And the Colle is also ineffective when Black hasn't committed to playing P-d5. So, after 1 d4 Nf6, White should play 2 Nf3 if s/he wants to stay within the Stonewall, Colle, London, Torre repertoire.

After 1 d4 c5, White can play 2 c3 and still keep all of his/her options open. After 1 d4 c5 2 c3 cd 3 cd d5, the position is an exchange Slav by transposition. Not exactly the most dynamic approach by White, but if we were after a dynamic approach, we wouldn't be playing the Colle, Torre, etc. repertoire in the first place, now would we? :)

atomichicken

Jan 9, 2009

0

#39

Chuckychess wrote:

IMO, the Stonewall is only effective when Black plays 1...d5. That's because an important strategic goal of the Stonewall is to plant a knight on e5. If Black can play P-d6, then a key theme of the Stonewall is negated. After 1 d4 d5 2 e3, White can play the Stonewall. But after 1 d4 Nf6 2 e3 d6, the Stonewall is ineffective, and the Torre and London are virtually impossible to play since the QB is hemmed in. And the Colle is also ineffective when Black hasn't committed to playing P-d5. So, after 1 d4 Nf6, White should play 2 Nf3 if s/he wants to stay within the Stonewall, Colle, London, Torre repertoire.

After 1 d4 c5, White can play 2 c3 and still keep all of his/her options open. After 1 d4 c5 2 c3 cd 3 cd d5, the position is an exchange Slav by transposition. Not exactly the most dynamic approach by White, but if we were after a dynamic approach, we wouldn't be playing the Colle, Torre, etc. repertoire in the first place, now would we? :)

Good points made, but I strongly disagree with you about The Torre being undynamic, even though it is the common view about such systems. I have access to much origonal material saved from hours of lessons with my coach on it that says otherwise. The origonal creator of the opening the great Carlos Torre was in fact a very aggressive player himself, beating such defensive legends as Emanuel Lasker with it (maybe some of you have come across his famous "windmill combination" which he used to win that game in a puzzle from somewhere). None other than Gary Kasparov recently got a very impressive and dynamic win using it against a very strong computer on playchess.com also, maybe I'll present that game sometime. Even in the final line you mentioned 1. d4 c5 2. c3 cxd4 3. cxd4 d5 While the game has technically transposed into the largely uninspiring waters of the Exchange Slav, White can still very advisably just carry on with the usual Torre plans and ideas, the c-file having been opened shouldn't make much difference if White is vigalent not to let Black gain any counter chances down it. Sure a significant portion (maybe 30-40%) of the variations (I'm talking about all Torre lines here by the way, not just the "Exchange Slav" offshoots) leads to the sort of game which would benefit a positional player, but I don't see why that makes it undynamic. Can you give me any variations which prove your point? I should mention also that the Dutch defense for Black (1. d4 f5) is the only opening which stops White (unless White is an idiot) from playing TA, due to many obvious reasons. And that in my eyes makes the Torre attack even more (controversially for some I'm sure) flexible than The C-Z. The reason being is because that DSB plays a more than useful role on g5 regardless of virtually whatever Black plays, on the other hand it's only good on b2 when Black commits himself to an early d5.

p.s. Some Master recently wrote a quite well recieved book entitled "A Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack", and although I haven't read it, it seems to me that "gambit" and "undynamic" don't tend to go together too often .

atomichicken

Jan 10, 2009

0

#40

chuckg99 wrote:

AquaMan wrote:

I'm breaking this out as a seperate topic, from my QP post last night.

I know these aren't the strongest QP openings, but can be effective if your opponent doesn’t know how to handle them, and can be fun for learning to build kingside attacks and mating nets.

For fans of this type of d4 openging, do you think there's any point in leaning the stonewall attack if I’m gonna learn the Colle-Zukertort. Do they compliment eachother? The stonewall seems to have two weaknesses that the Colle-Z doesn’t have; hole at e4 and the hemmed in Queen’s Bishop. Does the stonewall have any advantages over the Colle-Z? Perhaps the pawn on f4 in the stonewall has some advantages to offset the disadvantage of creating the hole on e4.

I'm aware of the following books on the Stonewall:

- The Stonewall Attack, Soltis. This is probably the best book on the subject, but about $50 US used.

- White Opening System Combining: Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack, Soltis. Will this give me a reasonable intro to the Stonewall? It’s only about $17 used.

I am going to buy the Colle-Z book, Zuke 'em, Rudel

I have both Soltis books you mention and, although a little dated, their ideas are still quite valid. I also have The London System by the same author.

The thing with these five systems (Colle-Koltanowski, Colle-Zukertort, London, Torre, and Stonewall) is finding the best way to weave them together into a White repertoire, so that you're always playing the optimum setup against a black defensive setup.

One key element is how quickly black gives up d-pawn control over e5. The sooner he gives it up, the more likely a Stonewall or Colle-Zukertort will be successful. So, for instance, if black answers white's 1.d4 with ...d5, that's exactly what a Stonewall or C-Z player would love to see...while exactly what a Torre player DOESN'T want to see. Conversely, a Stonewall/C-Z player isn't all that enthused about 1...e6, but a Torre player fares best against that move.

There are all sorts of tricky transpositions at work, and one of the reasons white might choose to play 1. Nf3 to start any of these systems. If black makes a committal reply such as 1...d5, 1...g6, 1...d6 or 1...e6, white can take the game in a direction he wants. On the other hand, responses like 1...c5 or 1...Nf6 leave all of black's options open and frustrate white's attempt to get black to tip his hand.

After 1. Nf3 Nf6, the only move white can make that keeps ALL of his options on the table is 2. d4. Now it is black's turn to potentially clarify the situation. Again, the moves 2...d5, 2...g6, 2...d6 or 2...e6 help white out by giving him a signpost as to which system would be best. However, with 2...c5! black can again shift the onus to white, who has to defend his d-pawn, advance it, or surrender a piece of the center with dc. Defending his d-pawn, with either 3. c3 or 3. e3 cuts down on white's options (3. c3 eliminates the C-Z, while 3. e3 eliminates the London System and Torre Attack). Advancing the d-pawn takes us into Benoni country, where white has to be prepared to meet all kinds of systems based on ...e6 and ...b5 (with or without ...d6), certainly a no-man's land for Colle/London/Torre/Stonewall players. And lastly, white can give up the center by just playing 3. dxc5 which, while playable, tends towards easy equality for black. (Oh, there are a couple of quick ideas -- the Veresov line 3. Nc3 threatening 4. e4 turning things into a Sicilian, but allowing the sideline 3...cd 4. Qxd4!? Nc6 5. Qh4 which is generally followed up by Bg5 and O-O-O -- unfortunately, 3...d5 is both simple and good for black; another thought is 3. Bf4 which shows it's stripes on 3...cd?! 4. Bxb8 Rxb8 5. Qxd4 and the queen is not easily kicked, while black's a-pawn must be tended to...allowing time for Nc3 and O-O-O).

On 1. Nf3 c5, black has actually reduced white's options, as 1...c5 is helpful in just about any black setup against white's opening, while white can no longer play 2. d4 because of 2...cd. However, the drawback (advantage?) of 1...c5 from black's perspective is that it permits (encourages?) white to transpose into a Sicilian with 2. e4. White can try, of course, 2. e3 or 2. c3 to reinforce the notion of 3. d4 but, as mentioned above, both of these taper white's opening system choices.

Attempting to blend these systems with the straightforward 1. d4 encourages 1...Nf6 (1...c5 allows 2. e4 cd 3. Nf3 and it becomes a question of which side knows more about the Open Sicilian variation the players end up in) and after 2. Nf3 c5! we end up back in the position I was talking about a couple of paragraphs up, thus white gained nothing for his forthrightness.

What does it all mean? Essentially, there's no way to force the optimum blend of C-Z, Colle, London, Stonewall, and Torre Attack. However, the white player can choose which opening he doesn't mind playing in less-than-optimum environments.

So, if you fancy the Stonewall, you can just play straightforwardly with 1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 and if black plays 2...d5, you've at least retained the option of Stonewall or C-Z; if he doesn't, you can still head into a Stonewall with 3. f4.

If you're a C-Z player, you could try 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. e3 and hope to death black decides to play d5 later (instead of the more flexible ...e6/...b6 systems).

As a London player, you could go in for 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. c3 ?! planning to continue with 4. Bf4 and 5. e3 (but also incidentally allowing 3...cd which, after 4. cd give a slightly inferior form of the London). Some flexibility is still retained obviously, since if black chooses 3...e6 (or 3...g6) this allows 4. Bg5 returning to the Torre Attack (which is stronger against fianchetto formations than the London) and on 3...d5 4. e3 followed by Bd3, Ne5 and f4, obtaining an optimal Stonewall -- much better than a London System from the same position, IMHO.

Positionally and strategically, I believe the Stonewall is the easiest of them all to play; paradoxically, that also makes it the easiest for black to positionally and strategically play against, since white's ideas tend to be fairly one-dimensional, i.e. checkmate.

My personal favorite is the London, where the correct move order is 1. d4 Nf6 (or d5) and 2. Bf4. Developing the bishop early allows white to take some sting out of black systems involving an early ...Qb6, since he has time for c3 and Qb3 to meet it. When black adopts formations that would be optimal addressed by a Stonewall, white play in the London still seems to fairly resemble a Stonewall, anyway...so it's like getting the best of both worlds. And the London ideas are subtle enough that they allow black plenty of opportunity to go wrong.

That's the 1st time I've read the whole of that post, and it's one of the best I've seen on this site. You obviously have a good understanding of what you are talking about. As I said, I don't understand your view that d5 should in any way deter a Torre player, but everything else seems sound. Plenty of things to consider learning from there... Was it all your origonal thinking?