Hi Jackson,
First let me congratulate you on finding a very good move that recent authors have missed. After 7...e5?!, your 8.dxc5 is not what either Gary Lane [Ultimate Colle] or Palliser [Starting out: The Colle] suggest, but it is the best move! (Palliser's line (8.e4) does not take into account 8...cxd4!, and Lane's (8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.e4) does not take into consideration the rather frustrating 10...O-O!! since after 11.f4 Ng4 White has to deal with the threat of both ...Ne3 and ...c4 [with the threat of Bc5 and issues on the f2 square...yuck!!)

I would not say the Colle lack "dynamism." For example, in your particular game, you would have had a great game just by using your greater central control after 9...O-O by playing 10.dxe5, since neither recapture give Black a comfortable game after 10...Qxe5 11.Qc2, White will play Ne4 after any reasonable response, probably exchange on f6 and then play Rd1. After 10...Nxe5, Black has to scurry around trying not to lose material as White plays all over the board:

(10...Nxe5 11.Nc4 (11...f6 12.Qc2 g6 13. Rd1 with the threats of Bh6, Bxg6, Be4, or b4)) Re8 12.Ng5! Nf6 13.b4)

However, none of the above is really relevant to the notion of trying out the Colle-Zukertort.

The type of Colle you played here is the "Colle-Koltanowski," it is what most people think of when they play the Colle, but it is not as highly regarded as the slightly more complicated but stronger Colle-Zukertort, where White plays b3 and Bb2 rather than c3.

To get a VERY cursory look at the C-Z, go to The C-Z introduction page of my website. That page is hardly worth calling a real introduction, so you might want to download the philosophy pdf from my excerpts page.

-David Rudel

Thanks for your input. I looked at the philosophy material and it looks interesting. I may be wrong but the set up looks reminiscent of a QGD Tartakower (which I play) reversed. Is that the case or am I missing something?

Are you any relation to Max whom I played an interesting CC game with about 40 years ago?

Nope. No relation to Max.

You bring up a great question "How similar is the Colle-Zukertort to a reversed Tartakower defense"?

The answer, amazingly enough, is "Imagine you were playing against the QGD, using a Tartakower, but your opponent was drunk and accidentally played e3 BEFORE playing Bg5...that would probably make Black pretty happy...especially since now he could play Bd6 [instead of Be7] (in addition to the general issue of White's Bishop being stuck]...then throw in the extra move, and then you have a C-Z.

This bishop issue is critical because, as you hopefully got from the philosophy pdf, the C-Z draws its strength from Black's Q-Bishop being so hard make useful.

So:
Tartakower Defense + Better posted K-Bishop + extra move + changing a good piece into an absolutely terrible one and having your entire opening leverage that problem = C-Z.

First let me congratulate you on finding a very good move that recent authors have missed. After 7...e5?!, your 8.dxc5 is not what either Gary Lane [Ultimate Colle] or Palliser [Starting out: The Colle] suggest, but it is the best move!

Oleinikov has 8.dxc5 in his Nc6 main line.

Here is a game that is similar in the way your game opened Jackson. I think giving you examples of games used for examples would do best. I think my earlier post wasn't very good and would just lead to circles.

One of the main ideas for the Colle is to create a queenside pawn majority. To create a passed pawn on the queenside and promote it.

V Pantev vs Spas Kozhuharov (2001)

Here's a game from what I understand is one of black's best responses: 10.h6


Pelikian, Jefferson - Valle, Adriano, Brasilia 1997


I'll post more games as I can find them. As far as I know, the CD doesn't allow me to cut and paste.

Whoa, I was gone for just a few days and look how many posts there are! Well, all I have to say is thanks, and I really don't like palliser's (or any books on the Colle). I used the chessbase software to study the colle.

2021,
Have you looked into the Colle-Zukertort? If you are the type of person who prefers chessbase DVDs to books, you might find the C-Z more befitting your level of play.

To get back to the question you asked at the very beginning of this thread, I have an interesting Queen's Pawn Game/ Anti-Benoni line (it is a plug-and-play line for any QPG repertoire). You can download it from my Excerpts Page.

-David

Aye, Silman identified ...h6 as a basic, infuriatingly good, anti-colle a long time ago (1990), and it appears to still be kicking! In fact, after 17 YEARS of action (really 21 years if you count Reynolds posted analysis of the move back in 1986), White still has not settled on a compelling response to ...h6. Palliser's book (2007) doesn't give an opinion, but spends about a dozen pages indicating that there is no clear solution to White's problems there.

This move has been suggested in some potent Black repertoire books, and until a White Knight comes through with a solution, it is just one of many reasons to avoid the c3-Colle at the moment.

Pelikian won that game using the Colle against h6. From that game, it looks like one of the not so obvious moves that helps white out is 12.Kh1. According to Oleinikov, the reason for this move is to free up the pin on the f pawn to allow it to support g3. It appears that Pelikian wanted to free up the h pawn's duties from g3 to attack.

I don't know that that game is a very good illustration of this variation of the Colle. Re8 is a rather uncommon move there I think.

It seems to me that the Bc2 idea is refuted by the simple ...b6

In this position [the one after 10...h6], the pivotal idea is White's eventual playing of e5. The question is "where does the Knight go?" If Black has to play Nd7, White can claim a bit of a victory in general.

This is the idea behind h3, it takes the g4 square away BUT it weakens g3. this means that ...Nh5 is rather dangerous because the f2-pawn is pinned, meaning that Nh5-g3, forking the Queen and Rook, is threatened. (As well as Nf4, hitting the queen and Bishop, so the Knight is forking a couple of forking squares...pretty formidable).

So, what does White do? He plays the sneaky half-move 11.Bc2. This appears to accomplish nothing, but it gives the Queen access to both d3 [threatening mate on h7 if the Knight has moved] and b5, which not only hits the Bishop on c5, but also allows the crafty Nc4! idea [imagine a Knight on h5, which means the d5 pawn is somewhat pinned if White's Queen is on b5. It also means that ...Nh5-Nf4 doesn't hit the Bishop that was on d3.

So, in this variation, White is doing everything he can to force the Knight to go back to d7.
But what about the aftermath of e5 ? (normal question mark, not a mistake)
After e5, if the Knight goes to d7, the e5 pawn will be under attack by 3 pieces, and the most obvious defense [Re1] is not quite as good as being able to play Bf4. Thus the idea of planning Nb3!, hitting the lose Bishop on c5 and uncovering the f4 square. Not only does this develop the Bishop but it makes the response ...f6 more or less impossible.

But after 11.Bc2 b6!, it appears White is busted. Nb3 will no longer really come with tempo, and Black's ...a-pawn march can be rather difficult to meet.
In fact, unless White goes for e5 IMMEDIATELY, giving himself a rather dubious position with a horrific pawn structure after 12.e5 Ng4 13.b4 Bxf2+ 14.Rxf2 Nxf2 15.b5 (15.Kxf2 Nxb4 leaves him a pawn down but with fewer weaknesses) Nb4, he isn't going to be playing e5 anytime soon.

To safely get e5 in, White would have to play 12.h3?!, but then 12...a5 with Ba6 to come is going to turn the center into a quagmire of pain...mostly for white. (note 13.Re1 Ba6 14.Bd3 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Rad8 is no picnic for White.)

12.b3 is the indicated move, then, for White, but after 12...a5, White can be reasonably sure his minority attack will hit before e5 can be played...and by the time e5 does get played, it won't mean much.


I think White needs to play 11.b4 or 11.e5 here instead. [11.e5 has been a hotbed of debate for years, but 11.b4 has not gotten the attention I think it deserves.]

Perhaps you don't think much of the game, but Oleinikov thought enough of it to put it in his book.