Unfortunately i think Colle & London systems are legit against the Nimzo move order.
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6

Now Black cannot play the most ambitious options against the Colle setups.
Dutch setups with f7-f5 are ruled out.
Playing for e7-e5 in one go is ruled out.
Pinning with Bg4 is ruled out.

So basically Black's big decision is to play the QP one square or two. Practically speaking i think d7-d6 leads to a more difficult game, leading to a hedgehog where White can't play the automatic plan Ne5. But Black's setup seems to lack punch, you know. I don't fancy such a slow position against a lower-rated player. Am i out of line in having that opinion of the hedgehog? I know Shipov wrote huge telephone books on the subject, but honestly referring me to his books is not really what i'm looking for. John Cox's "deviations" book gives d7-d5, but then i'd rather have played that without shutting in my bishop, right? And isn't this exactly what White wants-- he goes Ne5 and continues robot-style. It's almost enough to turn me off the Nimzo if i suspect White will go for a Colle system.

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 is an attractive option for Nimzo players, provided that one does not mind 2.e4.

Anyway, just wondering how Nimzo players deal with the Colle/London system setups. I'm looking for some kind of competitive edge here...

Didn't Curtains beat some Colle players back in the early days?

yeah i think curtains plays the d6 Hedgehoggy systems which is what i am leaning toward anyway.
viewtopic.php?t=8028

i suppose this is what i will stick with. my trouble is when a Colle/London appears on the board, i would prefer something nonstandard that requires White to be tactically alert. However, this does not appear possible from a Nimzo move order.

As a KID player I have good options against Colle setups. As a Nimzo player I'd go for a quick c5/b6 setup. I don't mind hedgehog positons (Shipov's second book on the subject is the one to consult), but you could also try and refrain from taking cxd4, while going for a b5-b4-advance. Even a g-pawn attack is not to be ruled out, now that I look at it. Lot of room for dynamic play, imho.

Edit: Maybe it's just personal taste, but the Black minor pieces always seem much more meaningful in these kinds of positions, at least to my eyes.

I have mentioned this many times already on this site - 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b5 is a simple method of mixing things up to avoid theory. Nf3 to some extent weakens whites control over e4. You avoid the Queens Indian. You gain a tempo on these Hedghog lines already mentioned. Yes, white can try playing sharper but plenty of virgin ground for the better player to win.

GM Jules Hodgson loved playing 1.d4 b5!? but 2.e4 seems strongest, and not 2.Nf3. I admit ' Mr lets see who can stay awake longest ', GM Kieth Arkell has played this 2..b5 many times - especially at weekend congresses ( no database for these games ), so it ain't too risky and exciting.

Don't trust the Polish Defence. 2...b5 also looks suspect to me, just out of principle.

3...c5 looks like it fights against 3.Bf4 and 3.e3 in a sensible way.

b5 looks weird! But somehow also quite logical. As an e4 player I didn't come accross that one before. It scores very well for white in the database though. Maybe it's a decent suprise weapon, but chances are if it's you're first choice then people could prepare against you quite well.

Hm? Does b5 really mix things up ? It seems to me that it barely affects white if white wants to go into a Colle/London system.
Cute idea though.

So what your all basically saying is it's cr*p. Ok, I can eat humble pie.

I will just add ( I know, I cannot let go - so sue me ) it is not a Polish. More like a Sicilian Kan structure with g6 is the aim. + the stats are very good for black - remember stats are only relative when ratings are in relation - otherwise pointless.

I've seen the b5-move before and I can agree with Pobble. I mean, let's suppose you play the normal c5-stuff - one major plan is to go b5-b4 to open up the queenside and create play. Maybe you can do that immediately. I'd be interested to hear the arguments against it (a quick Nd2-b3 perhaps ?).

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b5 3.e3 (which is the Colly sistem move anyway) and now do i really i have to defend my b-pawn with 3...a6? Maybe White plays it like a Torre attack Nbd2, e4, c3, Bd3. Intuitively, it looks bizarre/unprincipled to say the least.

There is also a plan of playing Bb7 and a quick Nf6-e4 intending f7-f5, and a Dutch setup. At least there Black makes an effort to play in the center.

It just bugs me that the Colle / London system brands itself as an opening "for Class/Club Players" and then there are basically like 15+ repertoire books for white on it and dozens upon dozens of videos. I believe the average 1600-rated Colle system player wastes more time on opening details than a similarly-rated player who picks up the Ruy Lopez or Queen's Gambit. And in the Colle system White basically tries to play 100% of his games exactly the same way, same plan, same pawn structure, same piece setup. So you have people who can't even play competent chess, generally speaking, but who specialize in a very narrow and specific position that they are trying to get in 100% of their White games. OK, i could just try to beat them in "their" position, which perhaps i should still be able to do, but i am not fascinated by this option. The popularity of Colle/London system really is one of the tragedies of amateur chess in my opinion.

If you do not like it I can understand, but bizarre/unprincipled? What are you smoking

What is the problem with white playing lame openings against you? Your black, you should be happy. Only a masochist wants to get killed by rote learned, computer prepared, brain dead, talentless, ugly, smelly, acne ridden, fat, lazy, £$ coached monkey, opponent.

Playing the b-pawn on move 2, then the a-pawn on move 3, seems bizarre and unprincipled in my personal opinion.

Pobble mate I'd never say you should eat humble pie, I was just stating the fact that it scores very well for white at master level games over the past 5 years, with over 60%. That said, there is one particular line where black plays d6 where suddenly the tables turn, so perhaps it's a matter of knowing exactly which line to go for. Unless you're at least IM, probably GM, I should think stats count for very little. My point was only that objectively perhaps it is not as sound as other openings, though practically speaking, the outcome of most games depends on the strength of the player rather than the soundness of the opening.



Think about the Sicilian though, actually for many years it was considered bizarre and unprincipled. Not developing the king side, loads of pawn moves in the opening...especially the Najdorf, which is considered one of the best openings there is for black.

Bizarre and unprincipled doesn't necessarily mean bad.

@ FlintEastwood I have never minded humble pie, it does me good. As a kid I got good quick, but had pastry coming out my ears. Thanks for the reply.

I make no great claims that 2..b5 is better than the standard replies, it just fit into the restrictions and needs given in the original post. Q - how to beat guys who have their opening position printed on their wallpaper at home?