GM James Mason attack .A variation of the London system or deserving recognition as a formidable att

Where's batgirl when you need her.

If memory serves , the " London " system was first played in a match between Scotland and England or maybe between Edinburgh and London circa sometime in the nineteenth century . I don't think " James 

Mason " would have been playing in that match ( I could be wrong )  ' Will probably have to do some research of my own if batgirl doesn't get the signal.

I don't know how to reach batgirl either or if she could help 🙂. (It wasn't me that started connecting James Mason to this attack - I was simply responding to it). Mason almost always opened 1 e4 as White and didn't even play the London System that I'm aware of. The early Bf4 move was first analyzed over a hundred years ago and played sporadically but didn't really become a system or be called the London System until it was played a lot in the London 1922 tournament. This was long after Mr. Mason departed from this world, so I highly doubt he played in it. How it ever came to be called the Mason Attack, I have no idea.

The 1820's London-Edinburgh match would have been long before Mason was born and I don't think any Queen's pawn openings were even played in it.
La Bourdonnais tried the early Bf4 once (unsuccessfully) in his famous match with MacDonnell in 1834.

Did further research - apparently Mason did start playing that opening in the 1880's - 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 - and it was called the Mason Variation (sometimes named after Harrwitz or Rubinstein, who also tried it). (According to the Oxford Companion to Chess)

No ! Anybody but that swine Daniel ( kook how easy this fellow Morphy is to beat ) Harrwitz.

Look.

Apologies to bobfyscher for having segued from the original question. I have seen the opening frequently played in tournaments, sometimes used exclusively by players rated 1200-1800 and sometimes by very highly rated players. The 1 d4 and 2 Bf4 move order has some advantages over playing Bf4 on the 3rd move (if you want to stay with a pure London). Playing Nf3 first (for example, 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Bf4) will generally transpose, but if Black plays 2 ... c5, it messes you up because you'd want to play 3 e3 but that would now shut your bishop in and you're playing a different opening. If you play 3 c3 to keep the London option open, after 3 ... cxd4 4 cxd4 d5 5 Bf4, and now you're in a variation of the Exchange Slav, which is fine if you want to play that.
The London is a good, solid, aggressive opening with attacking prospects. It avoids having to learn a lot of complicated theory and gives good, playable middlegame positions. It is also a good way for amateurs to meet the
K. I. D.
It can deprive some, especially KID players, of a lot of the counterplay they want, so some call it a boring opening.

Israel Albert Horowitz ?  Now you're talking.  A gentleman and a scholar .

It certainly isn't boring. If Black isn't careful , he/she can find themselves in trouble quite quickly. Of course , the converse is true , if Black is clued-up then any mistake from White , and the tables are turned sharpish , as I know to my cost.

Ah yes ! Bernhard Horwitz , one of The Pleiades .

Six , I believe.

Paul Rudolf von Bilguer.

Dr. Ludwig Bledow.

Wilhelm Hamstein.

Baron Tassilo von Heyderbrand und der Lasa.

Carl Mayet.

Carl Schorn.

The Berlin Pleiades. 

I would cast Jerry Lewis .

First of all, people are showing diagrams that don't pertain to the mason attack. B. It's a weak opening.

 

He played one heck of a nazi!

There was one in Family Guy.

 

Both of these statements sums up most registered voters.

I never heard it called anything but "The Mason Attack" until the last year when they started calling the "Accelerated London". Couldn't care less what its called. it works for me.