In amateur play, I don't think there is a more popular and useful opening (from White's perspective) than the Colle System. It's quick and easy to learn, safe, and contains quite a bit of sting. Incredibly, there has been very little written about this important opening. The original Colle tome was by Koltanowski. It taught basic ideas and gave some lines, but it was severely lacking analytically (nevertheless, players under 1500 enjoyed it, and this little book was one of the main reasons that the Colle became so popular). When Smith, Hall, Myers, Harding and Koltanowski teamed up to write Winning With the Colle System, they created THE book to buy if you're a Colle aficionado. It had its flaws, but it was far, far better than anything else available.

Years later, Soltis cranked out the horrible Colle System: Koltanowski Variation 5.c3. Though Soltis' book was useful if you ran out of toilet paper, it couldn't hold a candle to the previous Colle heavyweight and, thankfully, was quickly forgotten. More time has passed and Gary Lane got the bright idea of milking the huge Colle audience with yet another attempt at making the secrets of the Colle available to the masses. Has he succeeded in surpassing the older Winning With the Colle System? Let's take a look.

The first thing I noticed was the excellent coverage of 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 cxd4 9.cxd4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Be7. He discussed Plaskett's success with the White side of this position (Winning With the Colle passes it over by saying that Black is a bit better) and how it also arises from the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Be7 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.0-0 dxe4 8.Nxe4 cxd4 9.cxd4 0-0). This was good stuff, and gave me high hopes for the rest of the book.

Next I turned to one of the key lines for the whole Colle: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.e4 Qc7 10.Qe2. This, without a doubt, is the start of the main line, and the fate of this opening more or less rests on White's chances in this position.

Back in 1990 I played a match with IM Doug Root, a great expert on the Colle. Since he played the Colle whenever he could, I had no choice but to study it in detail. As a result of those studies, I became convinced that 10...h6! was Black's best reply. In the third game of this match, I was able to uncork this move and achieved an easy draw with the Black pieces. Since then, everyone has jumped on the bandwagon and 10...h6 is the move of choice among higher rated players. Winning With the Colle System (published in 1990) mentions this move but says little of importance about it. Lane's The Ultimate Colle correctly gives 10...h6 a serious look and concludes that "10...h6 represents a serious threat to White's ideas of a smooth development."

All this sounds good, but it was at this point that I noticed a flaw with Lane's approach: he did all the right things as far as looking at databases and giving what he viewed as key games. He also did a credible job of outlining the main ideas of this opening in the introduction. What he fails to do, though, is show that he really knows this opening. The lack of original analysis in lines that past theory and present practice have overlooked makes this abundantly clear. You see, in many ways the Colle is virgin territory. It's played all the time, but a serious look at the existing literature will make it apparent to any professional player that much of the theory is simply wrong.

Doing a study of his coverage of 10...h6, he gave 11.h3 (played often since my game against Root, which also featured 11.h3) and showed that it is harmless. He also offered up I. Ivanov's suggestions of 11.Bc2 and 11.b4 (both these moves have been tried out in practice). Among these "main" moves, Lane points out other tries like 11.exd5, 11.a4, 11.a3, 11.Nb3, and 11.e5. It's here that he slips up. He gives 11.e5 a question mark (as do most other sources), but after my game with Root I suddenly realized that 11.e5 might well be one of White's best options: 11.e5 Ng4 12.Nb3 Bb6 13.Nbd4! (Lane only gives an example featuring 13.Bf4 f6 when Black is, indeed, better.) 13...Ngxe5 (White's game is very pleasant after 13...f6 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Bf4 fxe5 16.Bxe5 [16.Bg3!?] 16...Nxe5 17.Nxe5) 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.Bf4 f6 16.Rae1 (I analyzed this position in early 1991 and didn't come up with any definite assessment. I did come away with the feeling that White might have a very small plus, but that Black should be able to equalize with careful play.) 16...Qf7 (Also playable is 16...Bd7: 17.Qh5 Qc8 18.Bxe5 fxe5 19.Rxe5 Bc7 20.Re2 e5 [on 20...Rf6 I think White might get a little something after 21.Nf3 Qe8 22.Qxe8+ Rxe8 23.Ne5] 21.Rxe5! Bg4! [accepting the Exchange by 21...Bxe5 22.Qxe5 favors White] 22.Qg6 Bxe5 23.Qh7+ Kf7 24.Qg6+ and 24...Kg8 is forced, making the game a draw, since 24...Ke7?? 25.Re1 would only make White drool with bloodlust.) 17.Bxe5 fxe5 18.Qxe5 Bc7 19.Bg6! Qe7 20.Qh5 Bd7 (20...Qf6 21.f4 looks nice for White since 21...Bb6 is met by 22.Rd1 and 21...Bxf4 fails to 22.g3 Be3+ 23.Kg2). The position after 20...Bd7 is an important one. Trapl-Orsag, Czech Republic 1998 continued 21.g3 (the tempting 21.Re2 e5 22.f4 Qf6 23.Rff2 rebounds after 23...exd4 24.Qxd5+ Kh8 25.Qxd7 Bb6) 21...Rf6 22.Bd3 Qc5 23.f4 b5 24.Kg2 b4 with mutual chances and an eventual draw. I think that 21.Nf3!? deserves a serious look, since 21...Bb5 22.Qxd5 exd5 23.Rxe7 Bxf1 24.Kxf1 gives White more than enough for the sacrificed Exchange.

Okay, enough of that. Once again I've gone berserk and turned a review into an article! Let's pull ourselves away from this line and look at a key position in the ...Nbd7 system: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nbd7 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Ne5 Nxe5. I prepared this for Black and got it in my first match game with Root. Lane gives a game Gawehns-Treppner, German Team ch. 1996: 9.dxe5 Nd7 10.f4 f5 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.e4 c4 13.Be2 (Lane gives 13.Bc2!?) 13...b5 14.e5 Nd7 15.Nf3 Nc5 16.Nd4 Bd7 17.Be3 (and here Lane mentions that 17.Bg4 is also possible) 17...a5 18.Bg4 Ra6 19.f5 and White had the advantage.

In my opinion, the coverage of the position after 8...Nxe5 is insufficient. On move thirteen, why didn't he take a deeper look at the Bishop retreat to c2? This move has been mentioned in ECO and in some articles, so I can't understand why it was relegated to a quick mention here. After 13.Bc2 Black has 13...e5! 14.exd5 Bc5+ (stronger than ECO's 14...Ng4 15.Ne4) 15.Kh1 Ng4. Back in 1990, I thought there was a good chance I would reach this position against Root since ECO only gave the inferior 14...Ng4. As it turns out, it was reached four years later in a game of giants: 14...Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Ng4 16.Ne4 Qh4 17.h3 Ne3 18.Bxe3 Bxe3 19.Qe1 and White had a clear advantage in Bareev-Tukmakov, Tilburg rapid 1994. This was a rapid game, so the drawn result isn't too surprising, but Black can improve by 16...Nxh2! 17.Nxc5 Nxf1 18.Qxf1 Qxd5. Lane's light mention of 17.Bg4 (instead of 17.Be3, as seen in the Gawehns-Treppner game above) is also curious. In fact, this is how my first game with Root went: 17.Bg4! (in my opinion, this is stronger than 17.Be3) 17...Qc8 (I rejected 17...Qb6 due to 18.Be3. One line that shows the dangers in the position is 18...b4?? 19.cxb4 Qxb4 20.Nxe6! and White wins) 18.f5! Kh8! 19.Bf3 (It isn't a good idea to win the Exchange by 19.f6 gxf6 20.Bh6 since 20...fxe5 21.Bxf8 Bxf8 favors Black. However, 19.fxe6 would have given White a small edge after 19...Nxe6 20.Rxf8+ Bxf8 21.Bxe6 Bxe6 22.Be3) 19...Nd3 20.Qe2 Bc5 and Black had a comfortable game.

Finally I should mention a line that often occurs: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4. Lane only analyzes 4.c4, which, of course, is an excellent move. However, my students have had excellent results with 4.h3 Bh5 5.g4! Bg6 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.h4! when 7...h6 8.Nxg6 fxg6 9.Bd3 isn't what Black had in mind when he played 3...Bg4.

Though there is a scarcity of original analysis, no bibliography (which would really have been useful, because I'm left wondering what sources he ignored), and some odd gaffs, this takes over as the best book I've seen on the Colle (warts and all). That's kind of sad in a way, but it does have a lot of good material and is far more up to date than anything else. A really great study of the Colle has yet to be written, but while we're waiting we'll have to be satisfied by Lane's uneven but satisfactory book.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT