I wonder who some of these GMs are who have regularly played the Colle-Zukertort.  It's hard for me to recall noticing any (except to a certain degree Yusupov).  For example Aaron Summerscale, who advocated it in books/videos, doesn't appear to have played it much.

Ender wrote on 04/06/11 at 17:05:44:


It may easily be the best book on that subject ever written. He confines himself to lines where Black plays d5 and e6, so no Anti-Colle lines. It's not a repertoire book at all. He rather tries to explain all available strategies for both sides with great objectivity.

The only thing sorely missing is a variation index. If you need one you have to create it for yourself.

TalJechin wrote on 06/01/10 at 10:53:05:


Is this book any good?

FirebrandX wrote on 05/31/10 at 07:08:15:


NCO cites Rashkovsky-Aseev, with essentially these moves, as equal.  Surely it's not too surprising that Black can do this sort of thing against a tame opening like the C-Z, and perhaps "force" White to play into some sort of normal 4. e3 QID.  (For instance, in the path given by MNb, the same book thinks 8...Nbd7 should lead to equality.  I believe Botvinnik liked to play that way as Black, and I'm reminded of a game Lombardy-Keene, annotated in a book by the latter, in which White got an advantage after Black did something dubious.)

Speaking of the CZ, I've got a question for those that know the lines:

What do you do if black mimics every move you make in the CZ up to the point where the opening is finished? I have 2 different CZ books and neither cover this problem. Both books assume d5 will be followed up with c5 by black, and in the case of the QID, the repertoire assumes that black has not played d5. Do I play for the QID or keep going with the CZ?

So anyway, I had a player pull the mimic as black and I could not find away to force the typical kingside attack white gets in the CZ. Instead, I had to play a slow grind in the center and eventually I won the endgame just barely. I was quite annoyed to say the least, so I plugged the opening into Rybka and was disappointed to see that black is actually perfectly fine playing mimic to the CZ structure. Below was the opening from my game, but I really feel like I missed how to "correctly" play against black's move order. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!


1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 Bd6 5. b3 Nbd7 6. Bb2 b6 7. Nbd2 Bb7 8. O-O
O-O 9. Ne5 Ne4 10. f3 Nxd2 11. Qxd2

The whole idea that an 1800 can produce an opening book is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

From my research into this opening, the only thing it can be used to force is the 4.e3 variation of the QID. Other than that, when you play the CZ you are asking your opponent to decide what to play.

That has nearly, but not completely, turned me from playing it. On that issue, I wonder if White has less work using the CZ, despite this drawback. It's clear you have less control over the opening to be played. The workload relative to using another d-pawn special is not so clear at all. No one has made any attempt to clarify this issue either.

On Rudel's book, which I've read very, very closely up to the half-way mark, I think:

a) it could have been organized better
b) it assumes some chess knowledge which presents a cognitive gap for 1300 players
c) parts of it are better than some of the stuff already in circulation on the CZ.
d) it has too many typos but that due to the nature of the publishing process with this sort of book, I think.

I would describe myself as an active as opposed to passive chess book reader. As an aging B class player/sometime A class player, and nearly retired science teacher, I struggled with it in certain places to extract real meaning. There were times I was "in the light" of the author's message and, at other times, I was in the dark.

I would say the book has its moments. The book was certainly no half-hearted attempt -- that I can assure you! It's not perfect either, but it's difficult to buy any that are, right?

Compared to Soltis' CZ, I would give it more than a passing grade.

I've not ready Palliser's book yet. If that's not it, I'll say that the best CZ book has yet to be written.

I also think, like some other posters here, that you should gather information from reading a book before making remarks about the book. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial but that doesn't always happen in these Forums.

STEFANOS wrote on 09/27/08 at 11:14:17:


This amateur was not called Sliman but Schliemann. I have always wondered if he had something indirectly to do with 3...f5. Note thet Vitolinsh (with h) had a much higher rating than most contributors here and had much more right to be called an expert.
Anyhow, Mr.Rudel calling himself an expert on the Colle-Zukertort is not a capital crime, only immodest. My problem is that I have some reasons to doubt his chessintegrity. That's why I will not buy his book, though I was initially interested.