Why you should play the Colle!

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
This is mostly how I play OTB, although sometimes I start with 1. Nf3 as white.

My favorite transpositional novelty the last 3 years is when I play 1. ... g6 against 1. d4, and if the game continues 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 (white's 3 and 4 being interchangeable), I leave the King's Indian, play 4. ... f5, and take the game into Leningrad Dutch cha ...[text shortened]... utch, and I avoid all the anti-Dutch lines that patzer players like myself often use as white.

That works as white as well. If black plays d5 against g3 it is possible to play f4 and end up with a Leningrad Bird. It works quite well. Well, it works for me. I don't guarantee it will suit everyone or that it is objectively super good.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is interesting in itself, for there are openings which seek to fight for the initiative right from the start and openings which do not, the so called quite openings, thus it appears to me not to be so entirely clear cut as fighting for initiative. The hypermodern player knows that at some point he needs to challenge the centre, yet he is willing ...[text shortened]... doubt he is a truly formidable player. Therefore it must be on the basis of some other factors.

In my database Kramnik scores 68% with 1. e4 but he plays it only about 2 times a year and not since 2009. My guess is he only plays it when he sees a huge hole in an opponents repertoire.

Again, I don't see a question of hyper modern vs Strong point. One plays openings like the KID, the Nimzo with the same dynamic goals that one plays the QGD exchange with Nge2 - In modern chess, it is more common to see systems where Black cedes material for dynamic play (marshall attack vs the Ruy for example) instead of opting for dreary static defense for 50 moves (see Orthodox QGD for an example).

This along with concrete analysis and massive opening prep is the effect that Kasparov brought to the game. If anything the Kasparov school of thinking would say it is not a question of taste, but of truth on the board.

Now at the club level, maybe truth isn't quite so clear. However, playing inferior positions will ultimately cost you rating points. The question is how inferior and how complex.

Originally posted by Diophantus
I spent ten years playing the standard "good" openings. I always played 1. e4 as white, intending a Ruy Lopez, and generally played Sicilian or Nimzo/Queen's Indian as black. Good solid stuff. That was a long time ago but even so I should have been able to hold my own as this sort of knowledge is not the sort of thing that vanishes quickly. Being CC, I co ...[text shortened]... t a hobby. I'm damned if I'm going to do any hobby that is harder work than my day job!

I wouldn't classify the AD and the Dragon as "bad" openings. I think, like the Najdorf now, they are generally avoided because of the power of computer prep. Maybe the AD has a little more room for play, but certainly the Dragon is heavily analyzed to the point where a GM won't play it if they think their opponent has a pet line prepared to bust you on move 30.

I have no problem with players who have reached Class A (ish) experiementing. Particularly if they are trying to use the breadth of their knowledge to transpose into favorable positions in the opening. That is a completely different idea than opting to play 1. g3 because you can't be bothered to learn 1. e4 theory.

Below Class A I think players are doing themselves a disservice (if they want to improve that is) because it just suggests to me that they havent mastered open games/tactics.

Originally posted by nimzo5
I wouldn't classify the AD and the Dragon as "bad" openings. I think, like the Najdorf now, they are generally avoided because of the power of computer prep. Maybe the AD has a little more room for play, but certainly the Dragon is heavily analyzed to the point where a GM won't play it if they think their opponent has a pet line prepared to bust you on move 3 ...[text shortened]... prove that is) because it just suggests to me that they havent mastered open games/tactics.

I wouldn't suggest anyone start with g3 or g6. I wouldn't even suggest a Sicilian to someone just starting. Much better to understand the double king and queen pawn openings first. Then move on to solid alternatives like the Sicilian, French, Nimzo Indian etc. Only after that should anyone consider breaking the rules with something like g3 or g6 because only then do you know what rules you can break and how to get away with it.

I can get away with g3 and g6 because I know the positions I like and how to get there from the starting point. Having a solid grounding in tactics etc. is absolutely essential because one simply doesn't have the crutch of theory to help much beyond move four or five, unless one transposes to something sensible along the way.