Markovich wrote on 06/11/09 at 15:56:15:


Duly noted ! It is intriguing, though. I am experimenting with pushing c4 from the Colle-Zukertort - man, those games are wide open ! I read that some of those lines transpose back into the mainline QGD (or QGA, depending) and so far, I have been able to avoid walls of pawns blocking me in...

The plan of attack now is to gradually use c4 more and more until I can go straight into the mainlines. In the meantime, tactics, tactics, tactics. Mind you, I am not talking about starting with c4, I am talking 1 d4 ... 2 Nf3 ... 3 c4 or something like that. In the Colle system, the c-pawn is not pushed at all, because it is normally used to protect the b-pawn (according to Gary Lane)

The other thing I have decided to do is investigate what others have mentioned in the thread. I am basically going to add the lines that patch the shortcomings of Colle, one at a time, and grow my repertoire that way. I have decided to pretty much forget the Stonewall Attack and Torre Attack - although it is useful in the right situation... but that situation comes up in, what, one out o 20 games or so ? 

I also decided to switch from Colle Koltanowski to Colle Zukertort, because it can transpose into the mainlines = easier to get into the rest of the d4 world that way, especially via c4. Plus, I have spent so much time in the Colle/Londonesque trenches already (well, since the beginning of this year, especially), so this way I can not throw away all of my opening work, or at least have a game plan and continue to play games, get into and out of trouble, etc. as I study.

I feel that I should get a repertoire I am comfortable with for white, one way or another, in a few weeks tops. I am already at that point with black, so I hope to be able to focus more on the middlegame tactics and generating good kingside attacks. Once I get a solid game plan together, I'll be very satisfied.

Thanks again for all of your replies !

I tend to agree that the Catalan is quite a poor choice for someone just starting out in Chess, especially if he's never played 1. d4 before. It's an extraordinarily deep and subtle opening....one that OTB I wouldn't trust myself to play either. I think if someone wants to start off chess playing 1. d4 (which I don't agree with, but that's another thread entirely), they should play straight forward and easy systems to learn. Exchange QGD, maybe exchange Slav or early e3 systems, Be3 or the 4 pawns against the KID, e3 vs. the Nimzo, etc....something that they could play natural developing, principled moves and get away with. 

Incidentally, when I started playing 1. d4, I played it very aggressively - 4 Pawns KID, f3 Nimzo, Bf4 in the QGD with 0-0-0, Bg5 against the Semi Slav, etc...practically it's a very dangerous repertoire if you know your stuff.

TN wrote on 06/11/09 at 01:33:19:


Well, what is more e4-like than that?  Or more fundamental?  You make my point for me.

TN wrote on 06/11/09 at 01:33:19:


I disagree.  I think that a player coming from e4 might very well start out with the Four Pawns.  

Theory is important for both players in sharp lines, not only for White.  But I don't think the 4PA is one of those systems where White's game just falls apart if he doesn't don't know the theory backwards and forwards.  White's ideas are fairly straightforward and not too hard to think of once you've seen them.  In the main lines, it really is your classic, stand tall and punch hard, open game of chess.  With a passed d-pawn thrown in to make it interesting, of course.

I don't know if there is a variation against the KID where anybody can quickly learn all the theory they "should" know.  The Smyslov, perhaps?  But I'll be darned if I would recommend something like that to people just because they were new to 1.d4.

By the way, years ago when I converted to 1.d4, I started out with the Four Pawns.  

Quote:


Sure. Development first!!

Quote:


I agree with this statement, but this does not mean that the White player will be successful with the Four Pawns Attack, particularly if he is unfamiliar with 1.d4 pawn structures.

Quote:


Many players would not be comfortable with the Four Pawns Attack, even if they are more tactically oriented, as often White has to be willing to sacrifice material for the initiative. It would be more suitable for the majority of 'starting out' players to play something more solid to ease their way into the queen's pawn openings with 1.d4 and 2.c4, as these players would usually prefer to be able to play a variation against the King's Indian where they can quickly learn all the theory they need to successfully play the variation. The Four Pawns Attack is a good opening, but you also need plenty of theoretical knowledge to play it successfully. 

But if White enjoys the positions arising from the Four Pawns Attack and doesn't mind sacrificing material for the initiative and dynamic chances, then I can recommend the Four Pawns Attack for such players as their choice against the King's Indian from the start of their 1.d4 careers. 

Quote:


This would depend on the level of player you are referring to, but if you are referring to players rated below 1600, then I agree. 

Quote:


I think we agree that the Four Pawns Attack is a good system against the King's Indian for a tactical, dynamic player familiar with 1.d4 pawn structures. 

On another note, should this thread be moved to 'General Chess' now that the discussion has moved to 1.d4 openings in general?

Edit: I recall addressing repertoire queries such as these in my thread on 'which opening should you play'. Still, every individual query varies somewhat from player to player.

I would like to thanks everyone for their replies. I have learned a great deal, and will start pushing c4 in a few games to try it out. Actually, yesterday, I lost a match where I tried a Catalan formation... *very* different, but fun (until I lost momentum and he activated his pieces....) I downloaded all of my games, and have started going over my losses, so the work begins, lol. 

@ TN, Mnb : Your posts give me some great ideas. The Queen's Gambit complex, as far as I can tell on the internet, has a few lines where the Colle System would be somewhat compatible (move order); I can ease my way into it. Obviously, the dxc4 opens things up - but there have been times where I wish I could have done that.

I have also figured out why some people say there are "good" Soltis books and "bad" Soltis books. I think the White Opening System book was one of his "bad" books. It's a shame, too, as it is very easy to understand... but not easy to tell when to hop between the three options he presented. I keep going into the middlegame with no real plans - very bad.

I also came across the English opening, but will ask that question in the other forum. One final question for this forum, though : what of the London System ? It seems that since both bishops can get out, the game would be more open.... I believe that the publisher hosting the forum is advertising a new ebook about it...

Hi TN,
I am wondering a few things:
1. why did you recommend the Samisch with Bg5 rather then the four pawns attack?
2. In the Nimzo for attacking player you cited 4.Qc2 and 4.f3 what lines do you like for 4.Qc2 I always thought 4.f3 though not theorecally as good is sharper than 4.Qc2...
3. In the Benko what is Epishin's 10.Rb1?  Is that the fianchetto line found in John Cox's book starting out?   
4. what do you think of the Shabalov/Shirov g4 line?  I thought it might be good as it avoids I think a lot of theory and Kasparov has played it!?!?!?
Thanks as always for your time and patience!,
Zatara