I think its a good idea to learn the Stonewall if you play the Colle or Colle-Z. They are definatley compliments in my opinion, just like other openings in that family of openings, such as the London System etc. The f4 push will always be an idea for White in those type of games. It would do no harm to know what the f4,e3,d4,c3(or b3) set up is all about.
Stonewall attack vs Colle-Zukertort
Sort:
Personally I like the stone wall but one does have to watch the trap on the queen and the queens rook. The key benefit I find is you can switch attacks to either side of the board. The colli, (not that i fully understand it) does in my view give a weakness on the kings side by bring out the bishops pawn. I feel ig leave the king exposed. I think it is important to explore new opening and when you do expect to lose a few until you learn it. I had a recent experiance with the silicin which I avoided like the plague but having played several games in a theme torney I learnt a lot. (didnt win:D but it was informative and enjoyable)
The stonewall can also be used as a defensive opening. Very good for positional and defensive players.
Jul 24, 2008
0
#6
drd, yeah, but openings are interesting. In that sense, if I were to accept for the moment that they don't help my win percentage or the rest of my game, I'd say they still have a similar time spend justification as chess overall :).
AquaMan wrote:
I'm breaking this out as a seperate topic, from my QP post last night. I know these aren't the strongest QP openings, but can be effective if your opponent doesn’t know how to handle them, and can be fun for learning to build kingside attacks and mating nets. For fans of this type of d4 openging, do you think there's any point in leaning the stonewall attack if I’m gonna learn the Colle-Zukertort. Do they compliment eachother? The stonewall seems to have two weaknesses that the Colle-Z doesn’t have; hole at e4 and the hemmed in Queen’s Bishop. Does the stonewall have any advantages over the Colle-Z? Perhaps the pawn on f4 in the stonewall has some advantages to offset the disadvantage of creating the hole on e4. I'm aware of the following books on the Stonewall: - The Stonewall Attack, Soltis. This is probably the best book on the subject, but about $50 US used. - White Opening System Combining: Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack, Soltis. Will this give me a reasonable intro to the Stonewall? It’s only about $17 used. I am going to buy the Colle-Z book, Zuke 'em, Rudel
I have both Soltis books you mention and, although a little dated, their ideas are still quite valid. I also have The London System by the same author.
The thing with these five systems (Colle-Koltanowski, Colle-Zukertort, London, Torre, and Stonewall) is finding the best way to weave them together into a White repertoire, so that you're always playing the optimum setup against a black defensive setup.
One key element is how quickly black gives up d-pawn control over e5. The sooner he gives it up, the more likely a Stonewall or Colle-Zukertort will be successful. So, for instance, if black answers white's 1.d4 with ...d5, that's exactly what a Stonewall or C-Z player would love to see...while exactly what a Torre player DOESN'T want to see. Conversely, a Stonewall/C-Z player isn't all that enthused about 1...e6, but a Torre player fares best against that move.
There are all sorts of tricky transpositions at work, and one of the reasons white might choose to play 1. Nf3 to start any of these systems. If black makes a committal reply such as 1...d5, 1...g6, 1...d6 or 1...e6, white can take the game in a direction he wants. On the other hand, responses like 1...c5 or 1...Nf6 leave all of black's options open and frustrate white's attempt to get black to tip his hand.
After 1. Nf3 Nf6, the only move white can make that keeps ALL of his options on the table is 2. d4. Now it is black's turn to potentially clarify the situation. Again, the moves 2...d5, 2...g6, 2...d6 or 2...e6 help white out by giving him a signpost as to which system would be best. However, with 2...c5! black can again shift the onus to white, who has to defend his d-pawn, advance it, or surrender a piece of the center with dc. Defending his d-pawn, with either 3. c3 or 3. e3 cuts down on white's options (3. c3 eliminates the C-Z, while 3. e3 eliminates the London System and Torre Attack). Advancing the d-pawn takes us into Benoni country, where white has to be prepared to meet all kinds of systems based on ...e6 and ...b5 (with or without ...d6), certainly a no-man's land for Colle/London/Torre/Stonewall players. And lastly, white can give up the center by just playing 3. dxc5 which, while playable, tends towards easy equality for black. (Oh, there are a couple of quick ideas -- the Veresov line 3. Nc3 threatening 4. e4 turning things into a Sicilian, but allowing the sideline 3...cd 4. Qxd4!? Nc6 5. Qh4 which is generally followed up by Bg5 and O-O-O -- unfortunately, 3...d5 is both simple and good for black; another thought is 3. Bf4 which shows it's stripes on 3...cd?! 4. Bxb8 Rxb8 5. Qxd4 and the queen is not easily kicked, while black's a-pawn must be tended to...allowing time for Nc3 and O-O-O).
On 1. Nf3 c5, black has actually reduced white's options, as 1...c5 is helpful in just about any black setup against white's opening, while white can no longer play 2. d4 because of 2...cd. However, the drawback (advantage?) of 1...c5 from black's perspective is that it permits (encourages?) white to transpose into a Sicilian with 2. e4. White can try, of course, 2. e3 or 2. c3 to reinforce the notion of 3. d4 but, as mentioned above, both of these taper white's opening system choices.
Attempting to blend these systems with the straightforward 1. d4 encourages 1...Nf6 (1...c5 allows 2. e4 cd 3. Nf3 and it becomes a question of which side knows more about the Open Sicilian variation the players end up in) and after 2. Nf3 c5! we end up back in the position I was talking about a couple of paragraphs up, thus white gained nothing for his forthrightness.
What does it all mean? Essentially, there's no way to force the optimum blend of C-Z, Colle, London, Stonewall, and Torre Attack. However, the white player can choose which opening he doesn't mind playing in less-than-optimum environments.
So, if you fancy the Stonewall, you can just play straightforwardly with 1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 and if black plays 2...d5, you've at least retained the option of Stonewall or C-Z; if he doesn't, you can still head into a Stonewall with 3. f4.
If you're a C-Z player, you could try 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. e3 and hope to death black decides to play d5 later (instead of the more flexible ...e6/...b6 systems).
As a London player, you could go in for 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. c3 ?! planning to continue with 4. Bf4 and 5. e3 (but also incidentally allowing 3...cd which, after 4. cd give a slightly inferior form of the London). Some flexibility is still retained obviously, since if black chooses 3...e6 (or 3...g6) this allows 4. Bg5 returning to the Torre Attack (which is stronger against fianchetto formations than the London) and on 3...d5 4. e3 followed by Bd3, Ne5 and f4, obtaining an optimal Stonewall -- much better than a London System from the same position, IMHO.
Positionally and strategically, I believe the Stonewall is the easiest of them all to play; paradoxically, that also makes it the easiest for black to positionally and strategically play against, since white's ideas tend to be fairly one-dimensional, i.e. checkmate. 
My personal favorite is the London, where the correct move order is 1. d4 Nf6 (or d5) and 2. Bf4. Developing the bishop early allows white to take some sting out of black systems involving an early ...Qb6, since he has time for c3 and Qb3 to meet it. When black adopts formations that would be optimal addressed by a Stonewall, white play in the London still seems to fairly resemble a Stonewall, anyway...so it's like getting the best of both worlds. And the London ideas are subtle enough that they allow black plenty of opportunity to go wrong.
Jul 25, 2008
0
#8
Chuck, wow, fantastic reply! Thanks. This is more than I was hoping for. I've been intellectually motivated to understand how these openings can weave together and have been trying to build a mental roadmap. You've provided a lot of nice detail. I started working through it tonight and just now familiarized myself a bit with the Torre and the London. My take so far is that the Colle-Z, Colle-K (I assume. Haven't really looked at it yet), Stonewall, and Torre are all designed with a quick kingside attack in mind (not always achieved of course.) The London is designed for slower, solid play, with a queenside pawn storm in mind.
I've been playing 1. Nf3 (KIA and a little Reti) recently so also liked your lead into the subject with 1. Nf3 with the intent of keeping options open and trying to wait for black to tip his hand. Of course the advantage of black tipping his hand relies on my recognizing the hand and knowing how to play against it, which is exactly the subject I'm finding stimulating right now.
It's beginning to look like the Reti, English, and QP openings can all be woven together. Is that right? I think my midterm goal is going to be to understand that opening space.
Thanks again. Your reply is a keeper. I have it printed out in front of me as I write this.
--
As a side note, for those looking out for my best interest and encouraging me to limit the time I spend studying openings. I am studying and drilling tactics. There's just not much to write about there, other than discussing puzzles here and there, which I do. And the endgame is very exact, so not much to discuss there in order to learn it. Could discuss to ingrain it. I do like endgame, and just starting class C section in Silman's book.
My natural interests do lean toward openings, strategy, and endgame, and not tactics. The openings are fascinating (slight overstatement, but I can't think of a more accurate word.) Middle game plans are interesting. Tactics are just a tool. And satisfying to know how to play a precise endgame when necessary. My take anyway.
Jul 25, 2008
0
#9
IrishChessWizard, londonplayer, knightassassin, thanks for tossing in your thoughts. All very helpful toward my seeing the big picture.
drd, thanks for looking out for me, too :).
Aquaman,
In my opinion, the stone-wall attack is a waste of time to learn because there will never be a time when you will play it if you use the Zukertort + Barry + 150 repertoire for which there are soon to be a couple excellent books on [I'm not talking about mine here...I don't discuss the Barry or 150].
I agree that there is interest in weaving together a repertoire, but it just turns out that you don't need any stonewall attack threads to do so.
drd wrote:
Spending time on openings before you hit Elo 2000 is a waste of time.
That's rubbish. I play OTB at about that level, and the sicilian/kings indian/semi slav players out there will destroy you if you don't at least know the basic plans.
Admittedly you shouldn't spend all your time on the opening but it's the only part of the game in which you can play like a GM! 
Jul 26, 2008
0
#13
David, any idea how soon the books on Zukertort + Barry + 150 will be released? Is one of them a reprint of A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire, Summerscale?
All i know is that the King's indian defense has a pretty easy time against the stonewall. All the black player has to do is prepare e5 and he has a pretty easy game.
You 100% do not play any Colle system against the Kings Indian. They work best against a black position with e6 and d5.
Jul 26, 2008
0
#16
Right, this is a good point that K123163 and Scofio bring up, and I've seen elsewhere. These Queen's pawn formations designed for fast kingside attack work best against the traditional f7, g7, h7 pawn wall. They don't work well against black's hypermodern kingside fortress. The beloved early Bxh7 for example is prevented by the pawn on g6. Also back rank mates along the h-file I think would be more difficult.
schofio, thanks additionally for the clarification that the colle works well against the black pawn center of e6 and d5.
I wonder if transposing to the London, if possible, is the way to go if black fianchetto's the king side, as the the London aims to squeeze the queen side. Thoughts on this?
edit: Of course one could just play white's side of a KID main line against black, but I already know about that.
Yeah, I actually was considering playing colle-zukertort as well and decided to change the system i play based on blacks play. My intention is to do 1. d4 and 2. Nf3. Then, if black plays d5 as a reponse i will play into the colle and if black goes for KID i will play to the london system.
Even though the C-Z is a system, you must be flexible. I play d4 and Nf3, and if they play d5 then straight into colle-zukertort. However, if they play g6 then I play c4 and into a Fianchetto KID. What one musn't do is try to learn a system and play it regardless of what the opponent does.
@ Aquaman, k123163: The C-Z is a system which 2600 players regluarly essay against each other. Many GMs have played it. The London however is much less respected. The C-Z is pretty much the only viable system d4 opening at GM level. Playing the London against the KID is not a good strategy.
Jul 27, 2008
0
#19
schofio wrote:
drd wrote:
Spending time on openings before you hit Elo 2000 is a waste of time. That's rubbish. I play OTB at about that level, and the sicilian/kings indian/semi slav players out there will destroy you if you don't at least know the basic plans. Admittedly you shouldn't spend all your time on the opening but it's the only part of the game in which you can play like a GM!
Who was it who said in America they all play the openings like GMs and the rest of the game like monkeys?
I know I wasted time on openings and only went over 2200 after I scuttled any attempt to know anything more than basic theory. I spent a wasted year at 1800 before I picked up Basic Chess Endings and went over 2000. Those were hard lessons.
If you know general principles, you will very rarely mess up an opening badly enough for that to be the decisive factor.
I'm breaking this out as a seperate topic, from my QP post last night.
I know these aren't the strongest QP openings, but can be effective if your opponent doesn’t know how to handle them, and can be fun for learning to build kingside attacks and mating nets.
For fans of this type of d4 openging, do you think there's any point in leaning the stonewall attack if I’m gonna learn the Colle-Zukertort. Do they compliment eachother? The stonewall seems to have two weaknesses that the Colle-Z doesn’t have; hole at e4 and the hemmed in Queen’s Bishop. Does the stonewall have any advantages over the Colle-Z? Perhaps the pawn on f4 in the stonewall has some advantages to offset the disadvantage of creating the hole on e4.
I'm aware of the following books on the Stonewall:
- The Stonewall Attack, Soltis. This is probably the best book on the subject, but about $50 US used.
- White Opening System Combining: Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack, Soltis. Will this give me a reasonable intro to the Stonewall? It’s only about $17 used.
I am going to buy the Colle-Z book, Zuke 'em, Rudel