Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 14 Feb '11 01:30
    1. Its easy
    2. You will never get hijacked in the opening again
    3. You will never need to learn another opening for white ever again
    4. You will have more time to spend on the middlegame
    5. You will have more time to spend on the endgame
    6. You will save a fortune on Sicilian opening books which dont make any sense
    7. Colle was a master who knew what he was doing
    8. You can play it as black against 1.d4, no more crazy Kings Indians
    9. You will start a new trend in anti-fashionable openings
    10.Kasparov never played it, which means you wont have to ape all his rubbish openings ever again.

    did i mention that it was easy. . . . just saying,

    give me five reasons why anyone shouldn't play the Colle, and please dont try its boring, getting demolished by some Sicilian geek is not that much fun either.
  2. 14 Feb '11 02:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    1. Its easy
    2. You will never get hijacked in the opening again
    3. You will never need to learn another opening for white ever again
    4. You will have more time to spend on the middlegame
    5. You will have more time to spend on the endgame
    6. You will save a fortune on Sicilian opening books which dont make any sense
    7. Colle was a master who kne ease dont try its boring, getting demolished by some Sicilian geek is not that much fun either.
    1. its easy equality for the opponent
    2. your opponent will never get hijacked in the opening again
    3. you will never learn another (better)opening for white ever again
    4. colle was a master who knew what he was doing and could crush any of us with any random move he thought of
    5. it is boring
    6. its easy
    I would prefer the tromp if I were to take up a slightly offbeat d4 opening. There is at least room for some original and interesting play there
  3. 14 Feb '11 03:02
    Colle-Zuckertort is better
  4. 14 Feb '11 03:11 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by erikido
    1. its easy equality for the opponent
    2. your opponent will never get hijacked in the opening again
    3. you will never learn another (better)opening for white ever again
    4. colle was a master who knew what he was doing and could crush any of us with any random move he thought of
    5. it is boring
    6. its easy
    I would prefer the tromp if I were to take up ...[text shortened]... lightly offbeat d4 opening. There is at least room for some original and interesting play there
    I like it and i am going to play it, ill leave all the Jazzy stuff to you guys, i am fed up of openings, i just wanna play sound chess.

    1. What's equality, how many of us even knows what equality is and when it has been reached? Even more, who can convert a minute advantage, infact, who can even tell when there is a minute advantage?
    2. Who plays for traps except GP?
    3.No one is claiming that it is the best opening, even that is a matter of taste.
    4. Colle would never play anything that was inherently inferior. Alekhine, one of the greatest attacking masters ever, also played it.
    5. Learning endless variations of the Najdorf Sicilian is equally as boring.
    6.Yes, its easy, so we want to make life hard for ourselves??
  5. 14 Feb '11 03:12
    Originally posted by Maxacre42
    Colle-Zuckertort is better
    I would only play the Zuckertort against a black fianchetto system.
  6. 14 Feb '11 03:26
    I have been told all of the things Robbie says and by several on this site but I need to see a game. Robbie, can you post one showing the Colle for white and the Colle for black?
  7. 14 Feb '11 03:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Porky1016
    I have been told all of the things Robbie says and by several on this site but I need to see a game. Robbie, can you post one showing the Colle for white and the Colle for black?
    Hi, here is one from da man himself, just has a two boring knight sacrifices, an
    exchange sac and well, some of the greatest imaginative play ever!

    Colle v Grunefeld

  8. 14 Feb '11 03:59 / 1 edit
    Here is Colle getting a tanking from Marshall, this i think is fairly typical of the reply
    that one can expect, Black plays a Queens gambit in reverse and Colle plays as
    white a Slav with reversed colours.

    Colle v Marshall
  9. 14 Feb '11 04:25
    I`m not knocking the Colle really .
    I think one should play whatever they like.
    If you do play the Colle you might be sane but would missout on wonderfull openings like this one.

    This is me as white versus mystery member.

    This is my definition of unorthodox.
    If its book its too normal to surprise your opponent.
  10. 14 Feb '11 04:28
    Originally posted by National Master Dale
    I`m not knocking the Colle really .
    I think one should play whatever they like.
    If you do play the Colle you might be sane but would missout on wonderfull openings like this one.

    This is me as white versus mystery member.

    This is my definition of unorthodox.
    If its book its too normal to surprise your opponent.
    [pgn]1. Nb1-c3 c7-c5 2. ...[text shortened]... a5-b6 12. Ra3xb3 Qb6-c7 13. Bf1-b5 Nb8-d7 14. Nf4-d5 Qc7xc2 15. Rb3-c3 Qc2-g6 16. Nd5-f4[/pgn]
    Rather interestingly i tried a Reti with 1.Nf3 and Retis own move 2.b4! the other day, was interesting, but I just want something solid
  11. 14 Feb '11 04:46 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I like it and i am going to play it, ill leave all the Jazzy stuff to you guys, i am fed up of openings, i just wanna play sound chess.

    1. What's equality, how many of us even knows what equality is and when it has been reached? Even more, who can convert a minute advantage, infact, who can even tell when there is a minute advantage?
    2. Who pla ...[text shortened]... f Sicilian is equally as boring.
    6.Yes, its easy, so we want to make life hard for ourselves??
    You asked for reasons against it. Don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer. I am not planning on jumping through the computer and stopping the most important person in the world from playing a rather dull (imop) opening.
    1. Can't touch that without a position. I for the most part know when I am in an equal position. I also know when I have just blundered in an equal position in most cases. I also for the most part know when my position is inferior(even if only slightly) and fortunately I am getting better at defending these positions. Unfortunately that is probably because I am not as good as I used to be.
    3. You asked for an opinion I gave it. Once again. If you don't want answers don't ask questions
    4. I guess he told you that? Playing and trusting are not the same thing. I don't know a lot of history so its just a guess. But, I am guessing that he didn't use it consistently or in many important matches.
    5.Interesting you play against the najdorf after 1. d4. At any rate. That is just a matter of opinion. I think learning about lots of different types of positions is rather interesting.
    And I guess you didn't know that you can avoid the najdorf after playing 1. e4 and play a rather simple game of chess with a c3 sicilian or even play a positional line of the najdorf if you so please.
    6. If you want easy play checkers. Ever heard the saying there are 2 paths to take one is easy and one is hard. The only reward of the easy one is that it is easy.

    Haha, but funnily enough I was actually thinking of the london when I made the earlier comments.
  12. 14 Feb '11 05:25 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by erikido
    You asked for reasons against it. Don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer. I am not planning on jumping through the computer and stopping the most important person in the world from playing a rather dull (imop) opening.
    1. Can't touch that without a position. I for the most part know when I am in an equal position. I also know when o take one is easy and one is hard. The only reward of the easy one is that it is easy.
    excuse me your most amazing illustrious eminence, i did not mean to state for one moment that i could possibly try to ascertain the validity of you're text by asking pertinent questions. I see that you are infallible, how silly of me to think that i should question your reasons, i promise that it wont happen again. . . . . . .grovels away while kissing Erikidos ruby encrusted ring!
  13. 14 Feb '11 05:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    excuse me your most amazing illustrious eminence, i did not mean to state for one moment that i could possibly try to ascertain the validity of you're text by asking pertinent questions. I see that you are infallible, how silly of me to think that i should question your reasons, i promise that it wont happen again.
    Maybe I misread. But, you seemed to be rather defensive when you wrote

    I like it and i am going to play it, ill leave all the Jazzy stuff to you guys, i am fed up of openings, i just wanna play sound chess.



    All I was saying was you gave reasons for playing it. I gave the EXACT same reasons for not playing (in different words, on most of them)it and you came back with some more questions. The whole point was that your reasons for playing it can all be reasons for not playing it depending on who you are.
  14. 14 Feb '11 06:01
    Originally posted by erikido
    Maybe I misread. But, you seemed to be rather defensive when you wrote

    I like it and i am going to play it, ill leave all the Jazzy stuff to you guys, i am fed up of openings, i just wanna play sound chess.



    All I was saying was you gave reasons for playing it. I gave the EXACT same reasons for not playing (in different words on most of them)it a ...[text shortened]... that your reasons for playing it can all be reasons for not playing it depending on who you are.
    well we can argue about things like that all day, after all chess is largely a matter of opinion, you may like a strong centre, someone else shall try to prove that the centre is not so strong at all etc etc indeed, its largely comes down to trying to prove that your philosophy is the correct one.
  15. 14 Feb '11 06:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    well we can argue about things like that all day, after all chess is largely a matter of opinion, you may like a strong centre, someone else shall try to prove that the centre is not so strong at all etc etc indeed, its largely comes down to trying to prove that your philosophy is the correct one.
    Okay, so do you only know the easy endgames? Or are you actually studying complex ones as well?