Early move order in London system

I was asking about the first few moves. Ive heard that 1.d4 2.Bf4 can be sightly move favorable, than 1.d4 2.Nf3 3.Bf4 my own limited view likes both orders. The first seems to have more flexiable. To the masses can you share your insight and recommend some sources (artticles,books,youtube,etc) to this specific question. 

I'm sorry but below Elo 3000, A+B=B+A where A=Nf3 and B=Bf4.

Well im not a GM but i dont think its totally apples and oranges. For example black playing ...2.c5 would look different vs 2.Nf3 and 2.Bf4. I not really looking for which is objectively better. but looks for just general opinions and sources for the question asked.

All right. Well, personally, I think that 2. Nf3 is optimal and 2. Bf4 suboptimal. So, 2. Nf3 is somewhat stronger than Bf4.

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 is correct.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 is incorrect, since after 2...c5 there is no good response. 

(Edit: looking back that's way too harsh; I think c5 is a good move but it doesn't refute the move Bf4 or anything like that.)

Oh, simply 3. dxc5 is okay for me.

I looked at this recently: According to Cyrus Lakdawala 1d4 d5 2Bf4 is best for white. He doesn't like 1d4 d5 2Nf3 Nf6 2Bf4 c5 for white. What worries him is  the 1d4 Nf6 2Nf3 d5 move order from the white perspective, and he goes for 3c3 for white in this move order - enterprising chess ! :-)

Simon Williams recommends 2. Bf4 against both d5 and Nf6.

He has several youtube videos on the London. Here's the one on d4 d5, you can search for the others.

Interesting games. Thanks for posting. I would say GMs are often wrong but not as often as the rest of us. In so far as a lowly player like myself may venture an opinion,I think Williams does say that 1d4 Nf6 2Bf4, then c5 is the real test for white. Thankfully all pronouncements on chess are provisional and tested in the heat of battle on the chess board and not in qualitative judgments on forums :-)

The problem for white is that after 3.e3 Qb6 whites best move 4. Nc3 pretty much gives black a draw if he wants it

@jengias Black was undeniably better in the Simon Williams game. That much can't (or shouldn't) be debated. Therefore, I don't understand how that game can possibly be cited in this discussion as evidence of this line's playability. 

And if your point had nothing to do with the game itself, then why continue posting full games with no analysis? That's not showing us anything. If you have analysis in the line then by all means give it to us. 

Here's one way for white to handle 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 c5. There are other ways as well. I won't get drawn into further theoretical debate on this, but I do welcome you to explore this line and see what you think of it.

London material that is possibly of interest:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627074459/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen85.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Win_with_the_London_System.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/9035.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/7619.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627100246/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen139.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093403/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/tips.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/7656.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-perfect-opening-for-the-lazy-student
and there is also the Cyrus Lakdawala book, First Steps: The Colle and London System.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings
Some places are now selling a set of London System DVDs by GM Damien Lemos. I understand that there is also a GM Simon Williams DVD on the same subject.

Jengaias wrote :

" So after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 is a perfectly normal move.Black can have nothing more than equality "

Equality in what? Who cares about equality...? White has play two moves and already bargains the initiative.

What is Whites strategic goal and plans after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 ? Being solid ?

What is the purpose of the dark square bishop on f4 after 1.d4 Nf6 ? Develop a piece?

I think after this sequence White has opened he's cards getting back nothing. Black can easily switch to a Gruenfeld set up and equalize automatically with c5. What I don't understand ....is why White plays this one?

For the sake of the London system?

 What your answer has to do with what i asked you??

 Who spoke about dogmatic beliefs?? I asked what is Whites strategic goals to play for an advantage after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 ? What is common sense in chess? Play an opening for Whites that Blacks equalize after a couple of moves and bargain the initiative with out a reason?

Yes ! Your friend FM is right...everything is objective from some point because chess tend to become a balanced tactically game that everyhting depends on a thin line to keep the balance or loss your good position...but here we talk for the first two-three-four-five moves!

I am asking again...what is the point after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 ?

What White is trying to prove? Why we should accept that is good for White to find balance in the equal positions rise up after a couple of moves?

My philosophy playing White pieces is to use openings that offer 1) Chances for early positional advantage or 2) Strategic goals that i understand their plans despite the position is equal

Now...tell me again , using your Grandma's common sense, what exactly from both two i mentioned above offers the opening to Whites after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 ( leave the c5 move out for the time being) and how can we reach to this conclusion ?

 Notice that i know already the Barry attack has no chance to prove something against the Gruenfeld set up. Evidendly. Not even chances to attack something...

 So if a post a game where Magnus Carlsen oppened with 1.a4 we should all deprive our common sense and start open the game with 1.a4 ?

@jengaias So in other words you're saying you have no idea what the evaluation of the line is?

 One of the main line (in London system of course) is :

And so on...

Not to everyone's taste from white's point of view. While in 2.Bf4 move order, u "prevent" this line :

There are other subtelties about this move order, but i just wanted to point this out.

Now, if u play 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5, u transpose into 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 and u didnt prevent the first line I gave.

Thats why, some (many) London specialists prefer 2.Bf4 (which also enable to go back into Jobava's attack and other fun lines).

Ok u have 2...c5, but white has some ideas here as Jegaias showed.

The question is then : do u prefer playing against my line 1 as white, or do u prefer playing 2.Bf4 allowing 2...c5 and positions which can become different from usual London system?

I don't think it is a theorical debate, it is more psychological, and subjective. U just play the line u prefer, or u avoid the line u don't want to face, like in all openings.

There is so much rubbish on this thread.

The opening is just there to lead to a playable middlegame. The London system achieves that aim,  No more, no less

 Not so after Black commit an early e6 where White can use the light squares to achieve strategic goals that can give more than a playable middlegame. The thing is ....why to play the London if Black doesnt commit an early e6? Why to play the Colle Zukertor for the same reason? Why to play the Torre attack?

 Whats Whites benefit from these openings with out an early e6 on the board? The playable middlegame? 

 ....and those who want something more from the opening? Lets play 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 and pray Black to follow with e6?