winawer77 wrote on 10/27/07 at 18:08:55:

I say go for it!

Take note:  Some of these guys talk like they know these openings like the back of their hand. Yea that’s all fine and dandy sitting behind a computer with their Chess Assistant opened up…but facing someone over the board that’s played seriously these d4 variations can be a daunting task at any level.   d4 variant users have crushed me a few times:  not in the opening phase but late in the middle game … They are not looking to pounce on you early on…(except maybe for the Tromp guys…if you let them…..)  

I’m also not just referring to openings classified as d4 variations either. I play the Reti and love to play against the New York  or the Capablanca var. Guys just stomp out the pawn and piece formation and look at me with a smirk ....as if saying…. now what? "Your opening advantage is gone."    That not6ion applies only if they know how to handle the position better than I, to include, if I don’t have any new ideas to throw into the mix.

Surely I’m not going to play these opening if I don’t have a few new ideas…

A great example of this.....

Kramnik plays some English lines that allow black to play an early d5. Most experts say these allow Black to equalize…However few in “over the board play” will go down those roads with him because they know he’s totally mastered those positions and he’s probably got a plethora of new nasty ideas to parade out…

It's  funny how so few want to find out if they are sound or not!

One can approach any opening the same way

Also remember old lines are new lines (look how many times Kasparov pulled an opening from antiquity and pounced on someone with it)

Check this beauty out:

The great and mighty Anand gets hammered by a d4 variation….

[Event "Beograd"]
[Site "Beograd"]
[Date "1988.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Georg Mohr"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "D03"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "63"]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.e3 c5 5.Nbd2 Nbd7 6.c3 Be7 7.Bd3
b6 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.f4 O-O 10.Qf3 h6 11.h4 Ne8 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qh5
f5 14.g4 Ng7 15.Qxh6 Rf6 16.Ng6 Rxg6 17.Qxg6 Nf8 18.Qh6 fxg4
19.O-O-O Nf5 20.Qh5 Nxe3 21.Rde1 cxd4 22.Rxe3 dxe3 23.Qxg4+
Kf7 24.Qh5+ Kf6 25.Qe5+ Kf7 26.Qh5+ Kf6 27.Nf3 Bd6 28.Qh6+ Ke7
29.Qg7+ Ke8 30.Bb5+ Nd7 31.Ng5 Qe7 32.Qg8+ 1-0

Let this be an example that most of the guys here are talking crap when they come off sounding like they have mastered all that there is to d4 variations, cause if Anand didn’t know the equalizing line then most don’t now….

Its important to note:   the equalizing line had been in existence for decades…here is a fresh approach to it!

[Event "It (open), Bled (Slovenia)"]
[Site "It (open), Bled (Slovenia)"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Mitja Cander"]
[Black "Zsofia Polgar"]
[ECO "D03"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "122"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 Qb6 5.Qc1 Nc6 6.c3 Bf5 7.Nh4
Bd7 8.Nf3 e6 9.Bd3 Be7 10.Nbd2 h6 11.Bh4 Rc8 12.Qb1 O-O 13.Ne5
Be8 14.O-O g5 15.Bg3 Nh5 16.Nxc6 Qxc6 17.Qd1 f6 18.f4 Nxg3
19.hxg3 Qd6 20.Qg4 f5 21.Qh3 g4 22.Qh2 c4 23.Bc2 b5 24.a3 Kg7
25.Kf2 a5 26.Rh1 h5 27.Qg1 Bg6 28.Qc1 Rc7 29.Ke2 Rb8 30.Bd1
Be8 31.Ra2 b4 32.Kf2 Rcb7 33.Ke2 Qd8 34.Kf2 bxa3 35.bxa3 a4
36.Bc2 Rb6 37.Qa1 Rb3 38.Bxb3 cxb3 39.Rb2 Qd6 40.Nb1 Qb6
41.Rc1 Bb5 42.Rd1 Bc4 43.Nd2 Bd3 44.Nb1 Be4 45.Nd2 Bd3 46.Nb1
Bc2 47.Rc1 Qd6 48.Rbxc2 bxc2 49.Rxc2 Rb3 50.Ra2 Qc7 51.Rb2 Qb7
52.Rxb3 Qxb3 53.Nd2 Qxa3 54.Qxa3 Bxa3 55.Ke2 Bb2 56.Kd3 Kf8
57.Kc2 a3 58.Nb3 Ke7 59.Nc5 Kd6 60.Na4 Kc6 61.Nxb2 a2 0-1

Yep, black equalized and won…so what?  you tweak your repertoire. Same goes for if your playing  a main line and someone learns a line that smacks it down....

Take into account that I am NOT talking about pro chess or the levels just below it... That's "Totally" different.  I’m talking club players like myself who have limited time to hone their game.. We have to cut corners and accept the sacrifices and trade offs....  

The running consensus here is that playing d4 deviations is “NOT” playing good chess.…I say......."BULLOCKS!" to that!

If you play the Colle or whatever d4 deviation and your frequenting this website take into account the following:


This site is geared for a chess player who’s average ELO is probably 2100+ or higher trying to obtain a surprise  "Novelty"  in the opening.

look and the careers of  Kovacevic, Miles Hebden, Hodgon, Salov, Piket, Timman, Yusupov, Vaganian etc etc.  Just to name a few…….. All these very strong chess players had these openings in their repertoire.

I do not play d4 deviations on a regular basis… ( 1.Nf3, 1. c4 or 1.b3 is my cup of tea) yet  I think they are fine at the club level…….. One has to treat them like standard normal openings  (researching the best lines to play…to include new ideas etc..etc…  AND yes some of these systems are not good to play against certain defenses so you have to find what is best to play…thus creating an actual opening repertoire.  Nothing is easy or for free…. We all know this…

The time saved (if there is any)  in using these openings  will have to be spent elsewhere as in middle game and endgame studies to be competitive at the higher club levels.  (yes...yes...yes..... these openings have long been mapped out leading to equality....but IMO.......that's not a bad thing in Over the Board Play)  In “Over the Board” play  there are so many types of  advantages…

An advantage caused from position familiarity can lead to an advantage caused by being ahead on the clock,  which then again can  lead to a psychological advantage etc…

This site tends to have people who only look at chess through the opening only:  where if they can’t obtain an advantage in time, space or force from the opening in question  then all else is meaningless.

 Included  in this response.........I’m of the opinion that most of the people here detest d4 deviations because they take them out of their beloved booked up defenses and force them to play position they don’t like for whatever the reason  …it understandable. Yet, saying that someone  using these openings is playing bad chess is a far-fetched stretch in my book.  

Mr Mambo
Yes, you are right. Torre only vs Nimzo/Bogo/QID kinda ...e6 folk.

vs 1. ...d5 queen's gambit is the way.

There is something to be said for both the Classical Colle (c3/c4/e3) and the Colle-Zukertort (with b3/Bb2).

I'd go for the first one, as White can react in the centre in more ways than the CZ, although the best plan is always dxc5 + e4) It's also the recommendation of Palliser in his latest Starting Out: Colle book. It's another excellent book by him and he paints a good picture of this opening, despite its limitations.

Also, I would only consider the Colle against Queen's Indian or Queen's Gambit setups. Do not even think of playing it against dynamic defences with ...g6

I mean "a good record against Colle players".
Playing the 'real' colle offers easy equality for black, but not more than that. The resulting positions are quite sterile.

I agree with Exigentsky. If you are ambitious, then you should better not play the Colle. The best way to improve is
to learn how to play complex positions and the colle (or London or Stonewall) will not teach you that.
I have a very good record against the colle and that is not because the opening is bad (it is a decent opening on itself)
but because the colle players are bad, they only play standard stereotype 'attacking' moves. A good way to play against
Colle players is to put the d-pawn on d6. The player with the white pieces can't put a knight on e5 and he has to come up with a plan himself.
In most cases they still play e2-e3-e4 or c2-c3-c4 and you can play a pirc or a king's indian with an extra tempo.

exigentsky wrote on 10/07/07 at 23:18:32:


Then you can call me Pinocchio.

After all, and I  think I've written it before on this forum, it takes a massive amount of hard work to sift out the good lines of such an 'economical' d-viation repertoire.