Thoughts on London System

What you're missing here is that this thread is 10 months old and your post contributed nothing.

If anyone is interested the book by IM Cyrus Lakawdwala "Play the London Stystem" is fantastic 

I didn't read all the way down, but if you used to play e4 but can't stand the sicillian, can I recommend the Veresov? (it's basically an e4 opening coming from a d4 move order). Cyrus Lakdawala also wrote a good book on it. You will see a lot of French defense responses, unfortunately, but Lakdawala has a huge anti-french section in his book. I actually enjoy playing against the french with Lakdawala's lines.

I really like Lakdwala's books - I am working my way through his 400+ page Slav book - I am not highly rated but he breaks down the information in a very logical manner that players sub-2000 can gain quite a bit. Sometimes books by GM's take too much for granted. Another favorite author of mine is Jeremy Silman - his endgame book has really helped me in tournament games - its crazy how many people sub 1600 never look at endgame study 

Win with the london system is a much better book imo, everything is explained clearly and it also gives many variations.
Personally I find Lakdwala's writing style annoying, its a bit slapstick.

I've used both - but I bought the Lakdwala's for my own reference - an interesting side-light is that even though the London isn't played in long tournaments - there are still lots of top gm's willing to play it in blitz, Kamsky has a bunch of London games

The London system is nice to have in your repertoire, but a steady diet of it results in rather boring games and your play becomes stale and uncreative.

Also, most London System players I know play it as a system against all defenses.  Well, guess what.  I play the Modern Defense, and the London just blows against it.  Even Cyrus Lakdawala himself has said that!  Oh, and by the way, Cyrus also wrote the recent Everyman book on the Modern Defense!

In my humble opinion, the entire system sucks.  I've played the Orangutan a good 50 times, the Veresov a good 50+ times, the Torre maybe 3 or 4 times, the Trompowsky a handful of times, even the Colle twice and the Grob once, but NEVER have I, nor will I, play the London System.  I've played lines that look like the London (i.e. the Exchange Slav, where white does go Bf4, but that's a whole different system, or the Dangerfield Attack against the Dutch, but again, might look similar, but it's not a London), but you'd have to pay me a LOT of money to play a London System as White.

a bit dramatic there - 

A nice lecture on The London / Torre Attack by FM Grant Szuveges: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMLuxoOyqQg

I completely agree with all of those who think that unless you have something very concrete prepared in the London, it is a very unambitious approach to play for an advantage (of any kind) with the white pieces. However, if you like playing the London/Colle type of positions as white, I suggest  you look into the Colle- Zukertort system as it is quite similar but a lot less compromising. It can be reached thru several move orders and black needs to play relatively accurately to defend against a potential fiasco on the K-side while having little counterplay on the Q-side.

<<Some say London system gives you nothing.>>

They're right. It gives nothing but a stolid and rather passive equality. 

Haha 17 months later!