Hello:

Starting Out: the Colle by Palliser seems very good. I have only used it a little to learn how to play against the Colle. But the sections are very good with great explanations.

Gerry

FischerTal wrote on 01/31/09 at 10:09:24:

Some thoughts:

If you are happy with your Catalan then stick with that.  Don't jump for a supposed magic bullet.  There is no such thing.  

If you're looking for something new, then I agree with Bibs.  Perfectly fine to play the Colle.  

Whether to opt for the Colle or for main lines is an individual choice.  Depends in part on your level, how much time you have, and what you want to get out of your chess.  

I don't see anything wrong with starting with something like the Colle.  At some point, if you find that its not testing enough or if you start to get bored playing the same opening all the time, then you can start adding main lines.  

As to what to study, I don't buy the argument that you have to study main lines.  There's lots to study, and if having the Colle in your pocket frees you up to study middlegames, tactics, endings, etc., then I suspect you'll be better off doing that than spending your time on opening theory.  

Yes like Matemax one of the reasons I like to give theoretical openings a spin is so I can get a better understanding of grandmaster games even if I might get a better result playing more pragmatic openings at club level.

e.g. the other day I played a Berlin just to see what it was like to get some understanding of the Kasp-kram games though a diffferent defence would probably give me an easier game against this particular opponent.

It's like until I tried a couple of rounds of golf I never liked it on TV but once I had the experience of it I got quite interested in it.

If you find you are black against the Colle a lot then that is the opening you ned to prepare against, White always has leeway to not play the most active variations that is just a fact of life.

Maybe this should go in the D pawn special forum.
What are good sources for systems against Colle , torre, rompovsky etc.? 
Martin's DVD (has anyone seen this?)
Cox's boook
Delembo - beating anti KID
what do people think of the above
Gallagher - beating anti kid is good

If your main goal is having a good time play whatever you like. If your main goal is to improve than study serious openings, but not by memorizing them. Try to understand them. That's what I have done and in otb play I usually are better after the opening against players of equal strength, with either colour. But I am blessed with a bad memory.
That former state champion of yours sounds like a lazy guy to me. There is nothing wrong with that of course; he obviously just wants to play. But the combination of Colle, Slav and Caro-Kann means that he strives for the same kind of play every game. Is specializing and limiting yourself like that really what you want?

In a tournament a couple months ago I had the fortune to play a 2100 player and former state champion. After the game (he played a colle) we got to chatting. During the conversation I asked why he played the colle and he said for amateurs openings don’t matter and not to bother wasting my time trying to learn the mainline stuff.  He said “you’ll be the only one that knows it” and you’ll never get to play it. He went on to say that most class players play off beat openings and it is a race to see who can get their opponent “out of book” first so I’d never get to play my mainlines. He said it took him a while to come to that conclusion but he has realized that no one plays them. He now plays the colle as white and the slav/caro-kann as black. He just gets into a middle game safely and then plays. He suggested that’s what I should do as well.
A month after this I was paired against him in the 1st round and again he played the colle. After the game we went outside and talked some more. He grabbed a few others to join us. After introductions I discovered one was a GM, one a master, and the third was another expert. He had taken lessons from the GM and the GM said the colle was perfectly alright for experts and below which is why he suggested it to this expert. The master said he too played the colle as his main white opening and he played the old Indian and Scandinavian as black. The other expert agreed the colle was a good opening then simply said he played d4 and very rarely castled. He later said he “loved” to play against fianchettoed kingside positions because he just pushes his kingside pawns and then mates.
I’ve thought about all of this since then and it does make some sense. Why spend time trying to learn main lines when I’ll very rarely, if ever, see them? It doesn’t do much good to study the black side of the Lopez when I see KIA, scotch and bishops openings. And why learn the grunfeld, nimzo or tarrasch when in last month’s tourney (as an example) I faced 3 colles.   

So, what are your thoughts on this topic? Should I take their advice and just play the colle and other closed defenses as black? Or continue with mainlines? I played the grunfeld for a couple years and the tarrasch for a few and am currently looking into the nimzo. Against e4 I play the petroff and I play the catalan as white. Should I continue with these or switch to the colle/caro/slav?