Countering the London System

5.qb3 in my database has been played 179 times among master games, 5.qc2 has been played 12 times. The engine gives no preference . Black can play almost identically since bd3 can be with c5-c4 and black will go nc6 g6 bg7 and bf5. Either white goes to qb3 and transposes a tempo down or goes qc1 which is no encouraging sight. The alternative is for white to play dxc5 but this already gives black the advantage.

a case can be made that 4.nf3 is better than 4.c3 but the thing is, the kind of player who plays the london wants a system, after 4.nf3 qb6, white must play nc3 which i addressed as a sideline, black should play bd7! which scores quite well among master games outscoring black significantly. White no longer has his precious london formation. Either way my promise remains the same. Black gets the more pleasant side of equality at a minimum .

In fact, the only other that looks playable is the virtually never seen 5.c4! which also takes white away from his precious system. I also seriously wonder how many london players are comfortable with the dynamic complications of gambitting the b2 pawn

Yes I accept the systematic nature of it. There was a local rapidplay yesterday. I didn't play because I was tired but called in and it made me want to play again. On board two, Mike Surtees, whom I've known for ages, was facing a London in round 4. He made it really complex, playing d5, Bf5, prophylactic Bg6, e6, c5, Nh6, Nf5 not necessarily in that exact order. He was unusual because he played 100 games per year and yet his rating was 2280 FIDE equivalent for years and never deviated more than 10 or 20 points. I need to ask someone how it ended.

I think the reason the position seems weird is because NM Dark changed the move order.

Originally, NM Dark was showing Black playing 1…d5 in first few diagrams.

He changed to 1…Nf6 in the second set of diagrams which complicates matters.

I only play 2.Bf4 against c6, d5, or e6.

I don’t play 2.Bf4 again Nf6 because I think it’s bad for 2 reasons

1) Black can play d6 Blunting the Bishop.

It is a real Feels Bad moment because the d6 pawn is double protected by c7 + e6.

2) Black can play Early Nh5

Even if Black doesn’t play it, The threat of being able to play it causes White to play in awkward way.

Here is how I would probably play the line as an example:

White has few moves they can play in the above position.

They can try to hold on to the pawn or they can treat position like a Semi-Slav with White pieces and just develop normally.

White seems to do fairly good in the above line which is probably why most players playing Black don’t really respond with 3…c5.

I think the main move is 3…e6.

Now in this position, Black can play 4…c5.

It’s not a bad move, but it has lost all of the C5 + Qb6 sting like in other variations.

White has reached their ideal set up and never had to deal with playing Nc3 stuff.

I think most Black players realize the above so they decide to play Bd6 instead.

———————————

If we change the move order, Black still can’t do what they are doing.

I guess you could argue that White position is no longer a London so Black sort of won by getting White out of his London set up.

However, I think the USA Champion Gata Kamsky showed these sort of lines are stemming from the London so I would argue they are merely an extension of the London Position.

My counter argument would be the Hippopotamus Defense.

You can’t reach the Hippopotamus Defense with out starting with a different initial Defense.

The position has so many moves that it really is 2 Openings merged into 1.

The Opening with in a Opening - Leonardo would call that OP-cenption

I was playing a kind of hippopotamus against the London. Very often I would play a very early c6 and moves like d6, Nf6, Bg4 if possible, Nd7, Qc7 and maybe e5. I had some good wins but it's hard to play.

Calling London the most complex opening is really strange, I feel like there are countless of options for black that all proove at least equal. Even sub-optimal moves can lead to equality. For example, as a chigorin player, I have had to play a variation with an early Nc6, this is my current score against the London.

I strongly believe that even with this sub-optimal Nc6 move, black is equal. Not better, most variations get very drawish, but you need to expect this if you play the london (not Jobava). Dont get me wrong, London is a fine opening, but many of the positions are drawish and the better player can play for a win. But the opening itself will never be the winning factor in my opinion.

Because white didn't play a good line.

There's an analogy. 1. b3 is supposed to be a system opening but it isn't. Played well, 2. Bb2 is incorrect. Played as a system opening, 2. Bb2 is correct. But 2. Bb2 is not white's strongest second move.

It's very similar with the London, where it can be played by weak players as a system opening whereby they play moves by rote. It can also be played by very strong players and for them it's a transpositional opening which is creating its own theory. If that sequence of moves where black plays g5 equalises or better for black then white has misplayed. In this case, the error was obvious. Clamp down on g5 if ... g5 is a threat. If it isn't a threat then allow it. Simple logic.

Obviously, if white plays 2Nf3 then the game proceeds regularly. (black could play 2...f5, if he so wishes) But a pretty good chunk of london games arise from 2.Bf4.

2. Bf4 was played for a reason, regarding a line where black makes a Q-side attack. That line actually seems not so good but a lot of players seem to want to avoid it because they are system players, probably not very good and so they want to avoid tactics. I'll try to remember the line and if I can, I'll post it.

So it's something like this: the idea of not playing Nf3 is that it was thought unnecessary and that it's better to precede it with Nbd7, which makes the B sacrifice on f5 impossible, since white's rook isn't trapped. A lot of people may still wish to avoid that line but ...Bf5 is only possible when ...e6 has NOT been played. If e6 has been played, white can develop more normally with Nf3. Hence in the trap that was shown, 2. Bf4 is bad.

Maybe the Queen's Gambit Declined is the most complex opening because of all the named variations and subvariations and all the subtle differences between them. I play 1. d4 and 2 c4 most of the time but the deviations in the London can be quite abnormal for QP players. Maybe I was being provocative, too. I've only ever played the London a few times.

I just dont think that there are any lines for white where "if equalised white has misplayed" against most defences from black. I agree that it can be played on any level due to its solidity and passivity, but that does not automatically mean that there are an advantage to be found - not that thats a problem anyhow. Most london players play the opening to get out of the opening with an okay position.

i hope i dont make it sound like im being too harsh on the london though. Its public reputation has improved drastically in the 21st century and with the rise of transpositional possibilities with the jobava "london" its reputation has been cemented at virtually all levels. The fact it was played in the last world championship is quite telling, but then again it also reflects a larger trend in super GM prep these days; the element of surprise is just as important if not more than theoretical edge. The top players who use the london dont go for the system right away but try to find novelties like early c4 instead of c3

The implication was that white has misplayed if equalisation occurs in half a dozen moves. We were discussing a line where black plays ...g5, hitting white's bishop and it seems to be a justifiable response by black, which seems to cause white problems and maybe equalise.

If it does equalise, then, since white could obviously prevent the line in question, allowing it is therefore an error by white, who has misplayed. Very simple logic.

It isn't about "what most London players do" but about "what can be done by using the London".

Okay, let me rephrase the comment. Because of the passivity of the modest london setup, there are not really many setups from black that white can prevent. Most of these setups, offer black equality if played correctly. I dont believe that there is any forcing way to play the london for an advantage.

When I said most people I was reffering to that most london players dont want an opening advantade, they just want to survive the opening without knowing any theory - and then london is a fine choice.

The only difference between the London and the QGD is the bishop placement on Bf4, whereas in the QGD it's normally Bg5, to place pressure on d5. That means that where Bf4 is played, there's less point to white playing c4 but that doesn't mean c4 can't be played in the London. Generally, when white plays system-like moves, black can equalise but very often in many openings, white does retain a small advantage. This isn't always understood. It might be just something like a small extra bit of space or better minor piece placement for one or two pieces.

Polish Defense FTW

This is one possible attempt by white regarding Compadre's first diagram. A sort of reversed Noteboom. White is obviously playing for a win here.

What is often not understood is that there's no need to consider the London to be a system opening. Yes, the first few moves tend to include d4, Bf4, e3, Nf3. But the point of chess is to try to win and not to play the same old series of moves which most people playing black will get used to and work out their favourite antidote to.

I agree, because c4 does not make sense in the london, black can develop optimally. In the QG there are drawbacks to all defences: QGD: blocking in your own bishop, Slav: blocking your knight, Tarrasch: getting an isolated d-pawn etc. But in the london, black can choose to develop however he likes, with very little consequences. The london is just way to passive for myself, but if it scores well for you, and you enjoy playing it then go for it. I just dont think that there is an objective advantage to be found by white.