TopNotch wrote on 06/02/07 at 17:01:28:



In the move order TopNotch gave, why not 3...cd 4.ed Bg4? Doesn't that just equalize for black?

Black also has this kind of option a little later in some Colle lines. For example: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 and now if white tries to stay in Colle/Koltanowski waters with 4.c3 cd, the best white can do is 5.ed but then 5...Bg4 is an Exchange Caro-Kann where black has no problems, right?

You are right and I underestimated good old Taimanov, even if I have sung a lot of praise of him. Here you go.

1.d4 e6
-After 1...d5 2.Nf3 c6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 f5 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.h3 White may try the same idea. White has a convincing 70% here.

2.Nf3 f5 3.e3
-3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 Be7 and Black will not play ...d5, as Bf4 is ill-placed.
-3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 and besides 4...d5 and 4...Be7 Black has 4...Bb4.
So 3.e3 suits the Colleplayer best.
Taimanov: this is more modest than a setup with Bf4, but the bishop can be usefull at home as well.

3...Nf6 4.Bd3 d5 5.c4 c6 6.Nc3 Bd6
Taimanov: too early is 6...Ne4 because of 7.g4 Bb4 (7...fxg4 8.Ne5) 8.Bd2
a)8...Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11.0-0 fxg4 12.Ne5 Qh4 13.f4! g3 14.Nf3 Qh3 15.Rb1 Rf6 16.Rb2 Rh6 17.Rg2 gxh2+ 18.Kh1 and White has the advantage, Sokolsky-Zaitsev, corr 1955.
b)8...Qa5 9.gxf5 exf5 10.Qb3 Na6 11.cxd5 Nxd2 12.Nxd2 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qxd5 14.Rg1 Müller-Olland, corr 1932.

7.Qd1-c2,0-0;8.b2-b3,
Taimanov: 8.h3 deserves attention, eg Ne4 9.g4
a)9...fxg4 10.hxg4 Rxf3 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Bxe4 Rf6 13.Bxh7+
b)9...g6 10.gxf5 gxf5 11.a3 (but what about 11.Rg1+!?) Nd7 12.b3 Qe7 13.Bb2 b6 14.Rg1+ Kh8 15.c5 Bc7 16.b4 (I would say 16.cxb6 Nxb6 17.Ke2) bxc5 17.dxc5 e5 18.0-0-0 and White has the better chances, Podgajetz-Karasjev, Odessa 1975.
c)9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 10.bxc3 dxc4 11.Bxc4 fxg4 12.hxg4 Rxf3 13.Qxh7+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke7 15.Qg5+ Kd7 16.Bxe6+ Kc7 17.Qxg7+ with excellent play for the piece (MNb); look at Black's undeveloped pieces.
d)9...Qf6 Maksimovic-Zaitseva, Cetinje 1992 was a premature draw.

8.....,Nb8-d7;9.Bc1-b2,Nf6-e4;10.0-0-0,
Taimanov: after 10.0-0 Rf6 and 11...Rh6 the white King is in danger.
I suggest 10.h3 idea a5 11.g4.

11.g2-g4?,
Taimanov: too early. After 11.h3 the mutual chances are about equal.
White may try 11.c5 Bc7 12.Na4.

11.....a5-a4;
Taimanov: 11...Nxc3 12.Bxc3 fxg4 13.Ne5 (13.Bxh7+ etc) Nxe5 14.dxe5 Ba3+ 15.Kb1 Qh4 and Black is better, Zak-Cholmov, USSRch sf 1951.

12.Nc3xa4,b7-b5;13.c4xb5,
Neverov-Al Sayed, Aeroflot Open 2004, 13...cxb5 and again Black is better.
These two players had a 2400+ rating, but their later errors proves how difficult these positions can be.

Taimanov wrote about 30 years ago a book called Damengambit bis Holländisch, in which he gave a few examples of the Dutch Rubinstein Variation, Stonewall, in which White prepared g2-g4. I will look at that game, but remember: I am not that strong either.

Thanks for the compliment, even though I haven't done my homework. No, I have never played such a setup neither researched it properly. I am just intrigued by a reference in an old book by Taimanov. That ....a7-a5-a4 plan is dangerous indeed and after a superficial look I can think of two remedies:

1) blockade with c4-c5 and Nc3-a4. This is not possible with knights on e5 and e4, as c4-c5 will lose a pawn then.
2) postpone castling a bit.

I am not sure what games of Neverov and Tseitlin you mean. As far as my database can see they both prefer castling kingside.
But I won't recommend against positional setups involving castling kingside.

James_Ells wrote on 12/31/08 at 18:01:23:

I don't really know, but my instinct tells me to castle queenside first. This is part of the plan with g2-g4 anyway so why forcing matters at an earlier stage? In general I think it's a good strategy to keep options open. In this case it means: play preparatory moves until the moment is right for g2-g4. In some cases White might want to play Ne5 and/or Rdg1 first, in other cases the move g2-g4 might be strong as a gambit etcetera.

I have played the Colle (proper) earlier as my main 1. d4 d5 choice. It is still my "second choice" after going back do d4-c4 openings.

My experience - agreeing with most authors - is that if Black plays an Anti-Colle line, i.e. something else than 3.- e6 after 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3, you should in most cases stay away from attempt to avoid c2-c4, trying to stay in "Colle land". After 3.- Bf5 you probably have nothing better than switching to the "slow Slav" (normally 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3) with e.g. 4. c4 c6 5. Nc3.

MNb wrote on 12/31/08 at 00:15:58:


Well, there is actually a new book that plays attention to this, namely (once again!) Avrukh's GM repertoire 1. d4, vol. 1 having a 6 page chapter starting from the position after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 f5 (called "The Stonewall Slav" - nice name).

Same book also deals with the slow Slav.

Dear Mr. Snow,
thanks for your kind reply. Sincerely I was looking for a bit deeper variations but i really appreciate your help. Indeed. Since my last post I've purchased Palliser book on the Colle. Great book by the way. So I've added the Colle proper to my repertoire. I take chess very seriously and I used to work hard on my openings...so I have Olenikov and Bronzik too. But some suggestions of anti colle don't like me much. For now I'm still searching for a sharper line against the schelecter and the stonewall for black. Palliser brefly mention the schelecter with no suggestion and his 'antidote' for the stonewall seems to me a bit slow. He quoted a game of Korchnoi..but the great man himself varied later and crushed Grischuk...if my memory doesn't fall.
So I'd like to share opinions on three anti colle (with the white pieces of course!):
1) The Schelecter Slav (quite passive but...an hard nut to crack)
2) The Stonewall with White committed with e3
3) 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5
But obviously if you - or others members - want to discuss or share opinions on other lines, you are welcome.
I'm an former e4 player and before I've met the Colle, I've used to play this variations with white:
Vs Nf6 Trompowsky
QGA 3.Cf3 7..e4!? gambit
QGD Af4 system and possibly castling long
Slav Geller Gambit modern variation
Semi Slav Latvian attack
But this is another story....
Maybe I'm a bit naive and I apologize with Mr. Rudel...but I don't think I will buy his book...It could be wonderful and in his forum I've found interesting new ideas but I can't stand the cover of the book! Sorry...but it really puts me off!
I apologise if my english is not so good.
Thanks in advance....and Happy new Year!
James Ells

Richard,

What about 1.d4 d5  2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 version of Colle-Z ? Here black has not played the e6 move. Does your book cover this ? If not what do you propose to white ?

Note: I made 210% out of your 1.d4 book. So extremely excited when you picked up Colle !!!

Souvik