Quote:



My database ( Chess assistant  and is current up to yr 05  with 2.5 million games)

After 1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 g6  4. e4 bg7 5. cxd Nxd5 6. e4


1-0  36%       draws 42%      0-1 20%   almost average, a little high on the draws 

I think in general 4. c4 variations are a bit underrated.     Nunn’s Chess openings on pg 439 has a lot of holes in it’s analysis and the comment “black should be ok if he knows what he’s doing” seems vague.   

My point of the first post,  As a persone who plays the Colle against 1...d5 when I’m looking at these positions from whites prospective I see better chances than the lines I quoted  above.  (lines that many books on the Colle recommend for white to transpose into when faced with a Grunfeld set up  (e.g. d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Bd3 Bg7 5.c3 0–0 6.Nbd2 c5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.b4?!  or 1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 g6 4. Bd3 Bg7 5. Nbd7 0-0 6. c3 c5 7. Qe2 b6 with 8. Ne5 or 8. e4  black is equal if not better) 

After white plays 1.d4  2. Nf3 and 3. e3 this line ( 1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 g6  4. e4 bg7 5. cxd)  has to come off as a surprise to black, especially  if it's sound/solid as it appears to be. 


  I’m up in the air as to thinking 4….Nf6 is a good choice.       4…dxc!?  Is  bad for black   5...0-0 does look interesting  but doesn't look to change much of the positions assesment in my book. (which is slightly better for white +=) 

Playing   4…c6  is ok( my data base results are 36% 1-0  draws 36% and 0-1 27%  that’s close to average main line results 

I am no Colle expert but I play it from time to time.

After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 I prefer 4.b4, making ...c5 harder to achieve (and planning Be2, 0-0 and c4). White can hardly expect a kingside attack, but he has fair chances on the queenside. It may even be +=.

One practical advantage of this move is that it fits well with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.b4 which I also play from time to time.

Both lines have been played by Vlatko Kovacevic, who I consider a good model in this kind of lines.

Maybe Lane expects a Colle player to know that he'd better transpose to the Torre against the east-indian defenses ?

Quote:


Since you wasted a tempo moving the e-pawn twice, I don't really think you gain a tempo. What does your database say about 6.e4 Nf6? Also, I think that 5....0-0 is interesting, waiting for White to commit to Nc3, Bd3, or Qc2 before recapturing the pawn.

Can the Colle transpose into a Neo-Grunfeld?

When a Colle user plays 1d4 d5 2Nf3 Nf6 3.e3…Black plays  with a high percentage  3…g6 and blam! = With (imo) white having to fight just to get a draw.  (Standard knowledge for all Colle aficionado’s ….)

I've tried and  I am not a big fan of the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Bd3 Bg7 5.c3 0–0 6.Nbd2 c5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.b4?!  And the most natural     8..c4!= and white has to fight to  draw.  (again (IMO)

So on my quest for an improve line after 1d4 d5 2Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 I have been playing 4.c4 with the natural 4…Bg7  and now 5.cxd5!  with  Nxd5 and then 5. e4! This chases the knight away, gains a tempo and dominates the center.  I had a fine game!

Since then,  I have been analyzing this position and  the inter-related 4…dxc and this also seems to be fine. The positions reached have a lot of similarities with a Neo Grunfeld  (D70)  except white had a knight at f3 instead of a pawn.  (which to me is more flexable)  In my data base this position scores well for white.  I am not that strong of a player so I know my analyses is going to be faulty.  However, It looks like the line is solid for white and can lead to a real opening advantage.

Or is this too good to be true?

Anyone have any thoughts?