Colle System or London?

Dear opening enthusiasts, I am at a crossroad between making the Colle System or the London my main opening. As you can see from the diagrams below, both systems look identical except for the development of the Queen's bishop.

The London gives White control of e5 at the expense of leaving the Queen's knight's pawn undefended and potentially losing the Queen's bishop for a knight. The Colle is solid and promotes the e3-e4 push and more resembles the French Defence and Stonewall (my opening choices as Black).

How do you compare the two systems and which is better?

Colle System.

London System.

The problem with the London System is that it allows the following sequence where Black in practice is winning two to one: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6. If Black doesn't play this way against you, chances are good you might have a level game. Not very ambitious, but if you don't like openings, and most London Systemers by definition don't, it may be good enough for you to give Black equality without a struggle from the opening.

In the Colle however the DSB is not easy to be developed. b3 Bb2 seems to be a relatively o.k. option, but IMHO, Colle is too defensive for White. (Related to Colle - or better a kind of continuation of it - would be Stonewall Attack, but you have the same problem with the DSB there, yet you may develop it over Bd2 Be1 to the kingside, to allow it to join the attack there.)

Curious to see what responses you get. Myself, I started my play here with Colle/Stonewall, changed to London, after I found Stonewall can be countered too easily, and meanwhile, as indeed also London may face its difficulties, I tend now to Jobava London (early knight on c3, rather 0-0-0 ...), mainly as it works better again Black's kingside fianchetto (but I still play both, depending on Black's answer). So if you do not want to lose time by making bad experiences by yourself, I would suggest to consider the latter as well ... (You can easily switch between London and Jobava London, depending on what your opponent plays and allows; I am a too weak player to assess that thoroughly here, but I feel pretty comfortable at the moment with these two alternatives. And of course they use similiar ideas, mainly the quick h4-push ....)

White should play 5. Nbd2 here (and in some similar lines) which prevents a quick Qb6 ... (One must not play London on autopilot, that's a mistake many London players make ...) It is not just about reaching the above given structure, the move order is very important. (And one has to be flexible with that ...)

@1
Both are good. The key point is Bc1.
In the London Bf4 is outside the pawn chain, but leaves b2 without defence.
In the Colle pawn e3 shuts in Bc1.
The real Colle keeps the bishop at c1 and prepares the advance e4.
The Koltanowsky plays b3 to develop Bb2.

5.Nbd2 doesn't actually prevent 5...Qb6, which move I think still gives Black an edge, albeit a smaller one. White's basic problem is that bishop on f4 isn't really doing anything, and how can White's knight be better developed on d2 than it would be on c3? 5.Nbd2 commits White to a bookish theoretical line after 5...Qb6 6.dxc5 Qxb2 7.Rb1 Qc3 8.Bb5 e6 9.O-O Be7 10.Ne5 when Black has a pleasant choice between 10...Bd7, which scores about equally, or 10...Qxc5.

That's why White plays nowadays 2. Bf4 first, so 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nd2 Qb6 6. Qb3, when the c4 + Bf5 idea doesn't work for Black.

@ComradesMarathon: I would go for the London, as it actually has more venom than most people think. The best source you can get is "Winning With the Modern London System" from GM Sedlak.  

Please excuse my bad English ("guard against" may have been clearer). Of course Qb6 could still follow, but it will not be that dangerous anymore.

And of course Nbd2 makes a lot of sense anyway, as after Nf3 and Ne5 the QN can follow the KN on Nf3 then ... (typical line, even if it may not be known by everybody ...)

In London, you always play Nbd2. With Nc3 it will be Jobava London or Barry attack ... 

How about Queen's Gambit? Playing those passive boring setups will make you quit chess after a few months. As long as you play actively, you should be fine though

Skipping Nf3 like this is a pretty rare bird at the club level. In your move order, I agree that 5...Qb6 is no longer the most effective antidote. 5...Bf5 instead actually has slightly more Black wins than White wins though.

Colle System and London System are for me in simple a semi-slave reversed color with Bishop of black square outside the pawn chain or inside. 

1) d4-d5 2) c4

2...e6 what bothers is that the Bishop of white square is blocked so as a logical and natural move there is 2)...c6

2)...c6 3) Nc3

Here I'd like to play 3)...Bf5 then 4...e6 but there is 4) cxd5-cxd5 5) Qb3 that is embarrassing.  So either I play 3)...e6 and fall into "the Colle System" by default or I persist in getting my Bishop of white square outside the pawn chain and try  3)...Nf6 4) Nf3-dxc4 5) a4-Bf5 but I gave my central pawn d5 against c4, "there are disadvantages" what.

Now with reversed color :

1) d4-d5 2) Bf4-c5 3) e3-Nc6 4) c3 

I finally got a position that I wanted to have with Black but as I had one less tempo with Black I could not play directly 3)...Bf5 because of 4) cxd5-cxd5 5) Qb3 and so I was a bit incited to play 3)...e6

So in simplified even if it is subjective I find the London System more logical and better than the Colle System.

Introduction To The London System & Jobava London System...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-london-system

Neither the better all the time.  None of the "Queen's Pawn Openings" work as a catch-all system, and that goes for all of them, not just the 2 you mention:

Colle System - Only works when Black plays ...e6 with the c8-Bishop kept BEHIND the pawn chain.  For example:  After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 or 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3, White is fine.  After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Bf5 or 3...Bg4, the move 4.Bd3 is not good at all.  There is a reason that it is actually called the "Anti-Colle".  White has nothing good there except for 4.c4, which will direct transpose to another opening, most commonly the Slow Slav.  For example, 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.c4 c6 is the same as 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5.

London System - Long story short, it fails against the Modern Defense.  1.d4 g6 2.Bf4? Bg7 3.e3 d6 4.Nf3 Nc6 (or 4...Nd7 also works if you hate Queen trades) 5.h3 (5.Be2 is no different, nor is 5.Nbd2) 5...e5! and already Black is equal after 6.Bg3 and better after any other White move, including 6.Bh2 or 6.dxe5?!.  I will also say it is not very good against the Dutch Defense.  Black gets an excellent game if he plays 1...f5, 2...Nf6, 3...e6, 4...b6! and 5...Bb7 against the London System.  Anything else, outside of the Modern and the Dutch, the London system is fine.

Torre Attack - No good against an early ...d5.  After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bg5?! Ne4!!  This is different than the Trompowsky in that White has committed to Nf3, and so there is no f3 to dislodge the Knight like there is in lines that start 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4.  Torre works against ...Nf6/...g6 lines and ...Nf6/...e6 lines

Trompowsky - Basically, it works against 1...Nf6.  There is an anti-Dutch line that is fine for White - 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5.  It is not good against 1...d5 because of 2.Bg5 f6!  Richard Pert in his book from 2014 goes into this line in detail, and he even says himself that he provided the chapter for those that insist on playing 2.Bg5 against everything, but he himself says that the line with 2...f6 leads to a slight edge for Black with best play, and the book is written for White!

Jobava - Works well when Black has played 1...Nf6 and 2...d5 OR 1...d5 and 2...Nf6.  It isn't as strong if Black hasn't played those moves.  Especially ...d5.  Part of the idea is that Black has weakened the h2-b8 diagonal with the move 1...d5 (he can no longer play ...d6)

Long story short - there is nothing wrong with playing Non-2.c4 QP Openings, but it will typically require knowing at least 2 of them.  For example, the Colle, Torre, and Slow Slav go well together.  Torre against Nf6/g6 or Nf6/e6, Colle against Nf6/d5/e6, Slow Slav against Nf6/d5/Bf5 or Nf6/d5/Bg4.  There are many other legitimate combinations but you will likely need to know more than one to cover all lines.

I wouldn't call Ne5 a brilliant move. Sure it's good but it doesn't do anything too amazing

Thanks for all the responses.

@DanQuigleyUSA Every London System player worth his salt is aware of that sequence of moves (1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Nc6 5. c3 Qb6). It can be avoided by simply playing 2. Bf4. However, even players such as Carlsen have played 2. Nf3 opting for the "Poisoned Pawn Variation" of the London System, which is quite complicated and required theory.

@Ammerbucher When I was new to chess I would play mainstream openings such as the Queen's Gambit and the Bayonet Attack against the KID. I also really liked the Samisch Variation when facing the KID, which shares similar attacking themes to the Jobava. Perhaps I'll consider playing the Jobava if I get fed up with traditional LS moves, but it is not that I have had bad success playing traditionally!

@EKAFC I've been playing those "passive boring setups" for over 4 years now and have reached many interesting/complicated positions. But you have a point, some variety may be what I need.

@GaborHorvath Thanks for the book recommendation. I only have Lakdawala's Play the London System which may be a bit outdated.

@Alchessblitz That is what I like about the London and Colle System, their themes can be played by the black pieces too, as you demonstrated. But how is a London/Colle/Slav player supposed to respond to 1. e4? I think the Caro-Kann is more like the London while the French Defence is more similar to the Colle. I prefer the French Defence over the Caro-Kann, hence I question playing the Colle System for greater consistency.

@ThrillerFan You make a great point - there is no catch-all in chess openings. I have guiltily been so focused on "perfecting" one universal opening that I've neglected some of the counters to those openings. You have provided a good summary of openings and I will look more into the Torre Attack and Slow Slav.

If we assume your opponent will play something relatively normal, I would recommend the colle. It is simpler, and you don’t have to worry about your bishop. Often, you get dual bishops on either d3/b2 or even d3/c1(!!) raking the black kingside.

I do not like the b3 fianchetto. Instead, I enjoy the “Phoenix attack” in the mainline with dxc5 Bxc5 b4!? Follows with a fianchetto afterwards.

I have tried it only once, in a 25/5 otb rapid game against a weak NM. After getting a good position, I was unable to win and agreed to a draw.

Its always quite the feeling when you play Bxh7 followed by Bxg7. 

The Colle system is a system. The basic Colle opening is two pawn moves and a knight move.  After that, there are three or four main structures that vary from pawn pyramids to going into a Queens Gambit Declined.   There are opening traps against the London opening, but not the Colle so you'll last longer.

London provides more options

Play both! They are easy to transpose into. I start almost every game with d4 and then Nf3. If they bring out their light squared bishop to f5 I'll play the queen's gambit. If they close in their light squared bishop by playing e6, I bring mine out to d3 in preparation to playing the Colle. If they open with a KID I will playing a London by bringing dark squared bishop to f4, with plans to put queen at d2 and attack their king's side immediately.

It's nice to play similar structures and all but when white has a 38% winrate vs. 53% for black in the main line Colle I find it very hard to make a serious case for choosing this as part of a main repertoire. I probably wouldn't play an opening with a winrate that bad as the black pieces.

London has some hard lines but there are also ways out of those lines if you play them right, and for every hard line you can find in the London there is a worse line in the Colle.

White doesn't need to close in his bishop for defense, he has the tempo needed to defend.

You can give a name to any combination of moves, therefor the Colle exists, but it isn't really good.