What's the Colle System?

Hi. Can someone explain to me what the Colle System is?

LOL.... its Colle System, not coal system.... HEH HEH

Colle:

Colle - Zukertort:

trade-off

Easy to learn and playable, but can't match a specific lines against specific defences.

I consider it to be a step in chess development.

As a beginner you will often meet/play  Bc4+Qh5(Qf3) tries, then perhaps a double fianchetto + Nf3+Nf6  + 0-0 setups , then stonewall ?

This could be a next step, why not:

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Zuke_Em_Colle_Zukertort.html

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2009/12/review-of-zuke-em-expanded-edition.html

http://www.zukertort.com/

when they stumble upon it I guess, or after someone successfully Zuke'em.

I have a friend and when I explained the Classical bishop sacrifice Bxh7+ to him(not as a part of Colle, but in general), he was so excited that he (often) played Bd3 for months.

He got some nice wins too.

When I first started, I played the Colle all the time. I still break it out occasionally, mostly to see if I can set up a classic bishop sac at h7. I rarely can, but it's fun nonetheless and against all but the best opponents gives you a very playable position that's neither cramped nor weak.  I usually end up playing against the KID when I open with d4 which is a pain.

The basic idea, however, is to line up your major pieces behind your e3 pawn and plan for e4. It blows up the center, usually because it threatens a bishop/knight fork at e5 if the pawn's not exchanged. It opens up the light squared bishop on the d3-h7 diagonal which usually takes aim at the king. The queen goes to the h file, the knight hops to g5, and bang! you've got an attack going.

I play it all the time OTB, mainly because I can snap off the opening dozen moves in a minute and give myself plenty of clock time for the rest of the game. I struggle with it the most against 2....g6 but I still hold my own.

This is the best way to get to a lost endgame right out of the opening.

It's the best opening for white. (my opinion)

Possibly even lamer than the London System.

I know what many of the posters mean but if you're rated under 2600, you can't be blase about automatically beating an opening.

I would like to see the posters who treat the opening with such disdain beat Susan Polgar, Artur Yusupov, Evgeny Bareev, Vlatko Kovacevic or several other exponents with Black. They would be lucky to make it to move 30.

DestructivePawn, I would say playing a system until you improve to a higher level is a great idea. These openings are simple to learn allowing you to focus on tactics, strategy, etc with whatever study time you have until you become stronger.

I played the Colle and then the King's Indian Attack until I was rated around 15-1600. I changed because I wanted to learn other openings and enjoy the full variety of types of positions chess has to offer.

However, if that doesn't matter to you, bear in mind that players have made Grandmaster with openings like the Colle as their main or one of their main weapons.

So many people make the mistake of thinking they have to play openings that promise a chance of an advantage in games played between 2700+ players.I recently had a 1500 player telling me that I shouldn't be playing the Grand Prix Attack because it's 'dodgy'. He must have confused me with a Super GM, because below that level strong masters are losing to openings like the GPA somewhere in the world every day of the week.

It might be easy for strong Grandmasters to equalise against the Colle. It might even be straightforward for FMs and IMs to do so. However, against strong players with a lifetime's experience in an opening who are thus comfortable in any middlegame position likely to arise from it, equality will not be enough.

First off I'm not being condascending, I'm not dramatically stronger than 1500 myself, I believe it would be ridiculous for a player of any strength to tell me that. But I seriously believe that a hell of a lot of amateur players are wasting time learning a load of book theory when general chess strength is obviously the main reason they're losing games.

Using myself as an example, I could spend months learning the Open Sicilians, and yes, my position after 10 moves might get a plus of anything up to 0.5 greater than I'd get with the Grand Prix. Even if it was 1.0 greater though, that will not decide the game, as me and any opponent within 200 points of my level will with 100 per cent certainty make a host of mistakes from then on, and whoever forces more mistakes and takes advantage of them will win the game.

Now maybe that potential -0.2 or whatever from the evaluation might decrease my chances by one per cent, as you say, but if I spend those months increasing my understanding of the game instead of keeping up to date with the latest developments in the Najdorf, that is surely a better investment.

A strong chess player can play any opening he likes, from 1 h3 to the Queen's Gambit, and he will always beat a weaker chess player. Therefore I don't see how playing the Colle or Grand Prix decreases the non-master's chances against another non-master in the slightest: You know there will be inaccuracies and perhaps some blunders from anyone rated under 2300.

A 1200 player's chances of beating another 1200 are roughly the same whether he plays the King's Indian Attack or the main line of the Ruy Lopez. Same for a 1500 against a 1500 or an 1800 against an 1800. And until you get to the stage where you have the time/inclination/understanding to seriously study complex openings, you could argue that your chances of victory are far greater playing an opening like the Colle, KIA, Torre Attack or Trompowsky that you know inside out than they are playing 1 e4 or 1 d4 2 c4, where you need to be prepared for a huge array of Black responses.

That's an accepted coaching method the world over. I know of at least one 2600+ coach that recommends the Colle for promising kids. Another example is chess.com regular Kayden Troff, who played the Torre with White until he reached a certain strength. There are thousands of others who have taken this approach.

And by the way, UhOh, while I always enjoy your posts and even agree with them sometimes, you undermine your points by simplifying people's arguments to make them sound stupid. I'm referring to your patronising CAPPED UP paragraph about winning one game with an inferior opening, like I'm an idiot and you're exasperated with me and my foolish one little victory, even though I mentioned nothing of the sort.

I don't want to get too far into this discussion, but there is a difference between say the KIA and say the Colle. The KIA is a flexible system rich in possibilities that may not give more than formal equality in the opening but it really does favour the stronger player in the middlegame. The Colle is a rigid system that just avoids opening theory but tends to lead to tedious and drawish middlegames. IMO.

The "Colle" is a pox upon the chess board.

UhOh some good points and I admit that the +1.0 comment was an exaggeration, a pawn advantage with no compensation would often decide a game at my level.

While it's an interesting debate I don't want to get into it too much and hijack the thread. My central point is this: A novice/beginner started a thread asking if the Colle would be a good option for him. This is an opening that cuts down on study time and teaches an inexperienced player a lot of good things about stuff like central pawn breaks and how to conduct a kingside attack. Telling him he shouldn't play it because best play equalises is madness.

Estragon, this is the point I disagree with you on. A beginner trying to handle a variety of pawn structures and a lot of theory will get lost very quickly. There is no harm playing a simple plan like going for the e4 break in the Colle or playing for e5 in the KIA until you're at the stage where you're not hanging pieces and you have a grasp of strategy. Perhaps you're that strong that you've forgotten how many aspects of chess are baffling to a beginner.

I do agree that playing other openings and hence other pawn structures is an important part of an intermediate player's development, which is why I gave up the Colle after a year or so. But crucially, I only did so after countless hours of study to make myself more tactically aware and increase my general chess strength. If I had been spending those hours fretting about the ocean of theory outside of my system, I would not have improved as quickly.

No, please continue this "debate". I am learning a lot from this "debate". It's true! 

Haha, well played sir!

Basically the Colle is a reverse Slav.