Countering the London System

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.

I don't play it. But it's genuinely a dangerous opening.

People think about it all wrong. The opening moves of the Sicilian don't look like much but I DO play the Sicilian and I get a lot of wins. Why is that? The one thing about the London is how flexible it is. So is the Sicilian. Probably the most flexible defence.

I agree & disagree.

I agree with Optimism saying the position is similar to the Noteboom Slav with White pieces.

I have always thought the same.

Even if White doesn’t play similar to Noteboom Slav line, White position is still good to me.

If white doesn’t hold on to the pawn, The position White gets reminds me of a Semi-Slav.

Holding on to the pawn might be the more challenging way for White to play for the advantage/win, but I don’t see any issue in giving the pawn back forcing Black to take time to recapture the piece in order to ensure easy development for white.

I still think white retains very small nagging edge, but perhaps it’s not enough to write home about.

Even if others disagree and think the position is equal, it still is pleasant position for White.

————————

As far as the C4 move is concerned, I sort of disagree with others on that matter.

I think c4 in London with Bishop on f4 could be helpful.

Bishop on f4 + Rook on c1 + C pawn trade would give White infiltration opportunities.

I don’t think it’s completely a bad idea.

Also, even in main lines where White Dark Bishop goes on g5. Sometimes, the Dark Bishop doesn’t get traded off for Knight on f6.

Sometimes, it snakes around to g3 which is same diagonal the Bishop in f4 is on.

You cannot compare the London to the sicilian. The sicilian, although it has many variations, is rich in complications, and mostly tactical nature. The London does have some variations in terms of move order, but the structures are all the same. In most variations, the nature is more positional and aimed for players who want to grind endgames.

But I just compared them, by saying that they're both very flexible! I play e6 Sicilians, which are more positional. Black targets the e4 pawn as well as h2 and the Q-side in general.

The Jobava obviously isn't so flexible. Maybe you've never considered the possibility of flexible openings? I knew someone who played 1. b3 very flexibly but I think you're mixing up "differently" (the Jobava is rather different, to be sure) with "flexibility", which means that an opening is capable of morphing and changing during the game because the pawns are not fully committed and they tend to stay on, so there can be a pawn storm at any point on the board.

I did not mean that the jobava is a flexible opening. I was only making sure that you were not referring to the jobava when you considered the london to be a flexible opening. To me, a flexible opening is an opening where you can play it many different ways. I dont think I have ever faced two london players who play the london differently. This is why I mentioned the Jobava, because it is another way to play the "London". But because it is so different than the regular london, I dont consider it the same opening.

Some London (non-jobava) players usually are misguided in thinking that it is some hyper aggressive opening with pawn storms and such. I have played 4 or 5 different systems against the london, scoring around 50-60% in most of them as black. I dont think I have seen any theory in these defences where white gets the initiative or anything remotely close to a kingside attack. Usually it ends in an equal endgame, with symmetrical pawn structures, and most pieces are traded.

If we look at the mainline in the masters database, London scores 50-60% draw, depending on move orders. This is far too high for me, or any player who enjoy sharp games.

There are some positions where white can play h4 Rh3 etc but they are very few (like maybe one or two).

Feel free to show me the lines. I am not aware of any lines like this in the London if black has not made any serious mistakes (except the jobava).

I don't remember the lines specifically - I just know it exists. I think this might be one of them. At least it scores somewhat decently.

I don't remember the lines specifically - I just know it exists. I think this might be one of them. At least it scores somewhat decently.

I did not mean that the jobava is a flexible opening. I was only making sure that you were not referring to the jobava when you considered the london to be a flexible opening. To me, a flexible opening is an opening where you can play it many different ways. I dont think I have ever faced two london players who play the london differently.

Maybe we play in different places or at different levels?

This is why I mentioned the Jobava, because it is another way to play the "London". But because it is so different than the regular london, I dont consider it the same opening.

Yes, I agree.

Some London (non-jobava) players usually are misguided in thinking that it is some hyper aggressive opening with pawn storms and such. I have played 4 or 5 different systems against the london, scoring around 50-60% in most of them as black. I dont think I have seen any theory in these defences where white gets the initiative or anything remotely close to a kingside attack. Usually it ends in an equal endgame, with symmetrical pawn structures, and most pieces are traded.

You have to be good. That's what Im saying ... this isn't about how the L is usually played but about how it can be played by strong opponents. Quite honestly, I'm scared of it in the hands of a strong player.

If we look at the mainline in the masters database, London scores 50-60% draw, depending on move orders. This is far too high for me, or any player who enjoy sharp games.

That might, legitimately, be due to the fact that it IS dangerous. The figure of 50 - 60% drawing is meaningless without the corresponding figure of wins. If it was 50 % draws and 50% white wins I doubt you would have the same attitude, so ... ?? Personally I like sharp games when I'm black; not so much when I'm white unless I'm fully in control.

I just play the Hartlaub-Charlick and there's no London against that

What on earth prevents white from playing 3.Bf4 after 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6?

It is not the best move, but still good enough for a large white advantage.

I think Be7 is a rather unambitious move. In my online database, it is played less than 10% of the time. The only reason I would imagine someone is playing the main-line this passively as black, is if he want to provoke an attack in which he has studied a lot. If black follows the main-line like this, there will be no attack for white: