darkunorthodox88 wrote:
its often lazy chess, and its frustrating not being able to bust open a player with so little care for opening advantage. It's by no means bad though.
yeah it's kinda too solid to do anything as white (so drawish)
ah do so many people hate the London system and think it's bad?
Sort:
I love to face the London System. Sure it is solid for White, but very easy for Black to equalize, imo. Black has to be patient, but Black gets all the pawn breaks. It's one of those "help me get past the 1700 barrier" openings.
I need some rating points. I gladly accept all challenges from those who want to play White in this opening.
Probably I would choose the White side of the Colle system over the London.
Dec 26, 2023
0
#26
The London System is a dry positional opening where white blocks the c-pawn with his knight, tries to close up the center, and then maybe plays on the dark squares by trying to get a knight into e5. I personally am thrilled on the black side when someone plays the London against me, because white only equalizes, and does not gain an advantage like white does after say: 1.d4 d5 2. c4, instead. However, certainly the London system is played by top Grandmasters and streamers. I just think that it is not the best attempt at trying to gain an advantage for white.
Funny enough, when I was using chessmaster 20 years ago, it implied Queens Gambit was all anyone played as white and was dull, but no one played the London, since then everyone seems to have given it a go as a system opening. I have no hate for the London, I just find it funny that when I get a 1.d4 game and I play Dutch I face a London set up about 40% of the time I estimate. I wonder if those who have prefered openings in 1.d4 that isnt symetrical face the London almost as often as main line in their opening.
Dec 27, 2023
0
#28
GMegasDoux wrote:
Funny enough, when I was using chessmaster 20 years ago, it implied Queens Gambit was all anyone played as white and was dull, but no one played the London, since then everyone seems to have given it a go as a system opening. I have no hate for the London, I just find it funny that when I get a 1.d4 game and I play Dutch I face a London set up about 40% of the time I estimate. I wonder if those who have prefered openings in 1.d4 that isnt symetrical face the London almost as often as main line in their opening.
I’ve had success against stronger players with the Grunfeld against the London System.
The middle game positions can get loose quickly for both sides but black has a handful of lines to steer an enjoyable game.
It's not bad. It's just tiresome.
London System is like the Bowdler Attack. Ok for White if you don't mind being stuck at 1700 or so, but very easy to play against for a good player. Black can exchange White's light square bishop by playing an early ...b6 followed by ...Ba6, and White has nothing. Nikolaos Ntirlis shows the way in his book "Playing 1.d4 d5, A Classical Repertoire"
Dec 29, 2023
0
#31
It is not "bad". It is just a nothing opening. Like the exchange French, White might as well offer a draw on move 3. Players below 2000 often think it can be used against literally anything when in reality, it really can't.
I'll accept a move 3 draw offer in the London if White is over 2200 and in the Exchange French if White is over 2400.
Dec 29, 2023
0
#32
I dont think anyone thinks it is bad but it is a very boring opening
I think a lot of it is people who hate FACING IT.
good thing I play 1...e5!?
caught a premover with it, but blundered the game from -7.5