Paul123 wrote on 06/12/07 at 23:50:48:

That really depends on the level. Very few people improve greatly on a diet of just a few openings.
Quote:

That's true, but at a certain point you wont reach these positions.
Quote:

Good point.
Quote:

Yes and no. Usually it is just that he didnt really put any effort in these lines and has to improvise.
Quote:

Also a good point
Quote:

Not sure what you mean here.
Quote:

Which top players played the Colle with any regularity? I know Euwe and Alekhine occasionaly played it, but cant remember any good results against good opposition (one draw in their match iirc)

Paul123 wrote on 06/12/07 at 23:50:48:


I am not sure how strong you are, but this can be a dangerous line of reasoning.  This reminds me of a 2000 player who always played the London.  He was a respectable solid player, but reached a plateau.  He had played the London for many years and liked the opening.  When talking about the opening, he would often mention the pedigree of the opening among top players in the 20's and 30's.  He became a little set in his ways and developed a very stodgy style.  More than once he would have straight draws in tournaments.  I talked to him after one of these tournaments (six games!) and he was not so happy.  He really wanted to make progress, but had trouble branching out to new things.  He seemed to have a training philosophy similar to yours, but it just wasn't working.  I've seen other people similar to this who would plateau with the Colle.  I don't want to be rude, but I have a strong opinion about this.  I feel that if you stick with a "system" for a long period of time you become an inflexible player.  The comparison made to the players of old can even lead to a form of a mental trap.  ("If it worked for so-and-so in the 1920s, it should certainly work for me.  I just need to stick to this and train harder!")  This can even lead to a form of defensiveness when others criticize their opening choices, which further seals the barrier to progress.  I don't think it is a bad idea to study the masters of old, but you have to keep moving forward.  A lot of the opening problems that were novel in 1930s have known solutions today that are even well known to non-master players.  Players who do not fully realize this are walking in an invisible minefield.  The understanding of chess is an evolving process which is not easily rendered to compartmentalization.  My advice (to anyone to which this would apply) would be not to put too many unnecessary restrictions on your development.  Systems are not a bad idea for a beginner starting out, but around 1600 you start to feel a bit of wear as you play stronger opponents.  Middlegames and endgames do not have to be studied separately from the openings you play.  Don't be afraid to try openings that seem difficult to understand.  If you play too solidly, you may need to force yourself to accept a greater margin of risk, even if it means worse results for a while.

I hope this doesn't come across as offensive.  I am mainly thinking aloud, since I've had people before talk to me about their problems in situations like this.  In the past, I have been restrained in giving my opinion, partly because I usually feel that the person is very set in their ways.  I usually end up feeling that I should probably just keep my mouth shut.

I agree - d-pawn specials do not test Black's position to the limit, far from it. But opening preparation (for me, at least) is all 1) about knowing the typical positions you are going to get in each line, and 2) maximising your chances of getting them. I think its this second point that openings like the London System, Torre, Trompovsky, Veresov really come into their own. Although they will not test Black on a theoretical basis, you can be pretty sure that against most of Black's typical defences you are going to get your favourite opening in.

Its because of this that I keep coming back to wanting to play these openings, even though I force myself not to, at least in serious over the board play. However, many strong players, even GMs make a living playing these openings, so I guess that its true when you say the middlegame/endgame decides most games, not opening preparation.

The funny thing is that I think I would score just as well with these systems, as I would with my current openings - I'm just forcing myself not to be tempted to test this theory.

I had to laugh at preyed upon's list because it discribes my own search for the perfect (and easy) opening for White. Looking for a sort of WIN BY FORCE WITHOUT THINKING opening.  

However, after 35 years of tournament play I've come to realize that my victories are rarely due to the opening I played. It seems like 95% of my wins are because of a tactical error or poor endgame technique by my opponent. Of course at the GM level openings are far more important and at the 2700+ level they're critical.

It's been said a million times and it is indeed true, if you really want to improve your game you must work hard at improving your ability to;
1.Anayze positions accurately and come up with the correct plan.
2.Calculate variations deeply and accurately.
3.Play endgames flawlessly.

What they don't mention is that as you improve and move up, you are then going to compete against players that have also improved and moved up. And this continues all the way to the super GM level. In other words, it never gets any easier than it already is right now!

Chess is not about being easy, someone might say. If it was easy it wouldn't be any fun.

True, but the appeal of d-pawn specials is that they are easier to learn than mainline openings like the Sicilian and KID. I believe that the farther you go down from the GM level the less important opening preparation is and the more important it is to spend your time working on the other parts of the game. With the exception being for those that have reached their comfort level and have no desire to improve their game.

And if you go down far enough you can even play the BDG!  

The point seems to be that he thinks the trade-off (between quality of middle-game position reached and time invested in opening study) is bad. 
Clearly he underestimates the amounts of time and energy it takes to create an opening repertoire of best lines without any holes in it. Even getting to know such a repertoire is impossible when holding a regular job. How many pages does 'Opening for White according to Kramnik' or 'Anand' comprise ?

As someone who played these openings for many years, I think I understand the appeal of them, both to a d4 newbie, and to those looking for an "easy" White opening.  

I started with the Colle, and went into the Stonewall, Torre, London sys., maybe some Tromp., and then the BDG.  It becomes a quest hunting for that one elusive opening that will:  

1.  be easy to understand
2.  buy time on the clock with little thinking needed
3.  appear to give a winning advantage since your opening is so solid, and no defense will be any 
    match for it

In addition:

4.  GM (insert name) plays it, or has played it, so it must be good!
5.  not as much preparation needed, as with other openings-- you can play the opening almost  
    automatically, then spend your time and energy on the middlegame         
6.  there is so much greatness in this one opening that it has to be the way to play -- you have found 
    paradise with White, and will defeat everyone with it!  (delusions of grandeur)


I went down this road more than once, telling myself reasons 5 & 6 will be my path to victory and superiority with White over everyone else.  And after awhile, you discover it just isn't true!!

The Colle and Stonewall run into the KID; in the Torre I would end up with a blocked pawn center and no real way to make progress-- almost a passive position for the middlegame;  the BDG-- tactically complex and difficult to play against good defenders-- there was always some roadblock  interfering with my supposed victories and huge rating jump!

I will admit I still use the London System, but as a SECONDARY opening-- you need to have something better than these as a primary opening.  Using them for awhile and learning 1. d4 2. c4 ( or some other major opening) is ok, but you have to break away at some point, if for nothing else, you don't want to become predictable in your White set-ups.  The same with the KIA-- good starting point, but eventually move on to something better.

These d pawn openings won't win just because someone plays them-- there are a  seemingly infinite number of replies and set-ups black can employ, and you must know how to exploit them, both positionally and tactically-- which is tough when the clock is running, especially if your opponent deviates from book lines and plays an "original" defense.

The queen's pawn games are a temporary staging area until you determine your true path with the White pieces.