Yusupov does not play the Colle line under discussion (Colle proper - Koltanowsi), he plays the Colle-Zukertort - which we are all waiting for an update on 
Most of the time his games transpose into main-line e3 QID positions though as he follows up with c4.

Well... best of luck with the Colle. 
I've played it myself with some decent results and no one is saying you'll never win a game with it.
But its not your strongest option and when people who play tame openings win they sometimes think "see this opening is fine",  when really they won in spite of the opening rather than because of it.  Tony Miles beat Karpov with 1...a6.  Do you think its because the opening is so strong? 

What do you think really won that game against the 2040 that you mentioned? Did the Colle give you a significant edge from the opening that you maintained through the entire game?  Did your knowledge of the Colle win that game or was it something else??   
The point is if you want to continually beat 2040 players, you're better off giving them difficult problems to solve.  Simple openings do not pose difficult problems for your opponents and so it makes it easier for them to outplay you.   
There is not a single top player that uses the Colle.  There hasn't been one for a long time because its now obviously not the best method of play.  If you haven't noticed, most of the top players try to vary their openings in order to broaden their knowledge and to increase the number of positions they know how to play well.  It also makes it more difficult for their opponent's to prepare against them.  Of course, you can get a playable middlegame...as I said.  But I think accepting mediocrity is a bad idea in the long run.  I'd rather learn to play chess the way strong players do, not weak ones.

RE: "you  surely can include it in your repitore. " Now why would he say that? 

Obviously he's saying that its okay to play if you are NOT playing strong players, don't plan on ever playing at a high level, and want to "include" it to your repertoire; not make it your repertoire.  Oh yeah...I think he might also be trying to sell you a book on the Colle.
But even with that motivation, he is still saying its basically for weaker players, or to use on certain occasions.  Yeah...there's an opening I want to spend my spare time studying!

RE:  "Even Dvoretsky recomends the KIA system ( to very strong  juniors...2000-2200) to base a repertoire on.   
Why would he say that?"

Again, Dvorestsky recommended the KIA only against certain setups and only as a starting point for children (!) until they learn better setups.   He said its a good way to start a repertoire; not to finish one.  It doesn't offer white anything, but its simple to learn and therefore a good place to start off before you get good enough to use a "real" opening.  I, personally, don't have time to learn an opening system I know for a fact isn't even close to the best and won't hold up against strong competition.  Its only effective against early ...e6 systems and is therefore quite narrow.  I don't want to bother with openings that I know for a fact will hold me back and cost me points. 

RE: "And you two have fail to answer the hypothetical question on who would win…”Booked up” guy or  Tactical and end game Guy... "

Thats because that ridiculous question that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Can you not see this?
No one is saying to avoid studying tactics or endgame.  Nobody thinks you should ignore the other aspects of chess or that opening theory is paramount. I think people actually devote TOO much time to the openings; part of the reason they do is because they don't make effective use of their time.  But if you are ever going to study ANY kind of openings, then why not good ones? Why not openings that the strong players use?

Here's a better test for you:  Get one machine to play nothing but the Colle and get another machine to play the mainlines.  Which one do you think will score better?  Is there any doubt in your mind?  Do you really think you're using your time wisely?

By devoting EXACTLY the same amount of time that you do on the Colle to more complex openings you would not only be improving your openings but your overall chess.  You cannot make chess simple by trying to avoid complications.  The better you get at dealing with complex positions, the better you'll be at chess.  Chess is not just simple positions.   And, again, no one is saying don't study tactics or endgame, no one is even saying that studying opening theory will help you more than studying those things.  The point is that when you ARE going to study the opening, why not learn to play the opening the way strong players do?   

RE: "Learning opening theory is NOT studying chess!  let's get that straight right now! "

Exactly who are you arguing with? 
But now that you mention it, if learning opening theory is not studying chess, then what is it? Woodworking? Marine Biology?
Its amazing to me that anyone thinks that when you are learning the Colle you are somehow not learning theory.  You are learning the theory behind the Colle!  Learning the Colle is learning opening theory; its just not topical theory but its still "learning theory".  And its obviously a part of playing chess.  How could it not be?   
Learning how to develop, to control the center, to coordinate your pieces, to fight for the initiative, to plan for the middlegame... is chess.   So is the middlegame.  So is the endgame.  You have a very poor understanding of the game if you honestly think there are 3 completely seperate, isolated phases and so you can get good at chess by ignoring any of them and focusing on the others.   
Your opening affects both your middlegame and your endgame.  I'm sorry but you cannot simply start in the middlegame.  If you never want to study any openings then fine.  But if you're studying the Colle, then you're studying opening "theory" albeit rather tame theory.  You'll get better results by studying better openings and this is obvious when you look at the repertoires of the top players.   

Nietzsche

ps - I am very done with this.  You argue against points that no one makes and ignore the points that ARE being made.   The Colle is easy to learn so people teach it to beginners.  But even the authors of the books arel telling you that it doesn't offer white an edge.  This is because it poses no real problems to black. It doesn't get the same results as mainline openings and the time you spend on it could have been spent in better openings which would teach you more about the game.  I don't see how anyone can disagree with the results or the fact that none of the top players use it.   If this posting doesn't make sense then read it again.

Enough is enough  

Sorry Nietzche...

But I still disagree with your approach.  ( Same goes for you Eric the Red, I'm 1855 USCF and  about 6 months ago I beat a guy rated 2040 with the Colle...go figure...How did that happen with such a one demensional opening? )

Both of you are acting like the Colle system gives you one and only one position  or only one end game position   Stop! Please.... It depends how  black rersponds to the set up. Sometimes you have to bail out of it...that comes with learning a system.  Who sticks with the Colle no matter what?.... 

However...
 
The latest decent  book on the Colle  written by Bronznik, He say's just what I did.  he wrote " There are some white openings that will, on a certain level, serve you vey well, but are not recommended to play for a win on the highest level, at least not for regular usage. I think that the Colle Koltanowski System is one of these openings. If you are NOT playing on a strong master (IM FM etc..) or grandmaster level, you  surely can include it in your repitore. "

Now why would he say that? 

Unless we are having a miscommunication on what the definition of an opening system is I'm going to be at odds and remain that way... 

Even Dvoretsky recomends the KIA system ( to very strong  juniors...2000-2200) to base a repertoire on. 
Why would he say that?

And you two have fail to answer the hypothetical question on who would win…”Booked up” guy or  Tactical and end game Guy... 

Learning opening theory is NOT studying chess!  let's get that straight right now!  Don't even try to convince me of  trying to evaluate an openning  (unless bold and clear cut...) constitutes as studying chess. Looking for ideas in an opening is one thing...studying or working on end game technique or combinations is another.... 

I'm getting tired of this ... You guys go your way I'll go mine...I'll put an end to my side by saying once more I disagree.

Chickening out....afraid...as if...Gheeze.. lol.....
 

Paul123 wrote on 11/06/06 at 23:10:11:


Thanks!

"Chess really is hard, but trying to force every game into the same type of structures won't make it any easier; just less interesting and less instructive."

This is a great quote. I think that some of the debate here focuses on short term vs. long term gain.  You will probably see quicker improvement with a system opening, but you will eventually plateau.  If your opponents don't know much theory, then you don't need to either.  Playing 1.d4 2.c4 will give you the stake in the center that you deserve out of the opening, and it doesn't require much theory.  And, if you don't like a particular line, say against the QGA, you can find another one that is reputable.  If you run out of ideas in the Colle, you're pretty much stuck.   

Also, I agree that openings cannot be separated from the rest of the game.  The opening moves are but part of the the whole.  As John Cox said about the opening in his excellent "Starting Out 1.d4" -- "If you aren't in the habit of searching for the best moves there, your experiences in the opening aren't helping you develop as a player." (p.9).   

Scott   

Paul123 wrote on 11/06/06 at 00:24:32:


We can agree that the middlegame is the most important, yet it is a direct offspring of the opening.  The Colle system produces a generic middlegame in which there is little scope for imagination and creativity.  You said it yourself, the Colle avoids traps and zaps.  Which basically means at each juncture in the game there are a dozen "safe" moves with little to recommend one over the other.  How can a player IMPROVE upon his/her play in this kind of sterile safe environment where neither side has an opportunity to go wrong?

IMO, you are not doing yourself any favors by avoiding "traps and zaps", you are only avoiding dynamically rich positions which are ideal laboratories for a chess education.

I think it's funny you mention that tactics decide most games.  In my experience Colle players are not tactically sharp!  Positions with zero "traps and zaps" (in the Colle) deaden one's tactical vision.  Now, Kings Gambit players are tactically sharp.  Max Lange players are tactically sharp.  Two Knights (Italian) players are sharp.  Show me a guy who has played Max Lange for 5 years and i'll show you a tactical assassin.

*** edited for better manners ***

Relating to what MNb said: even back when I played the Noteboom, I was smart enough to figure out that 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 f5!? (played now or a few moves later) gives Colle players problems.  I know I'm over generalizing, but most "system" players play pretty well when you give them positions they're used to, but play quite badly when you make them play something they aren't used to.

Case in point, here's a game I played a few years ago, back when I was U-2000.  Note that my opponent, rated 200 points higher than me at the time, was completely outplayed in the opening.  Only time trouble (it was a G/45) and the fact that a draw gave me first place prevented me from scoring a full point.


Obaidi,F (2142) - ErictheRed (1930) 
11.11.2003

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 f5!? 4.Nbd2 Nf6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.b3 0-0 7.Bb2 c6 8.0-0 Bd7 9.Ne5 Be8 10.c4 Bh5 11.f3 Bxe5 12.dxe5 Ne4 13.Qc2 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 dxc4! 15.bxc4 c5 16.f4? Nc6 17.a3 Rf7! 18.Rac1 (18.Qc2 Rd7-+) 18...Rd7 19.Rc3 and Black is much better; the rest of the game has nothing to do with the opening.

Anyway sorry to toot my own horn or take over the thread, but I really enjoy beating up on Colle/London/Torre/Crap players!!