Good reply for black to the London System

I have some French shooting squadron of my own.

Yes this. I usually play the hedgehog and I'm having good games. The position is equal so you don't get advantages out of the opening as black, but white has no plan. It must be so frustrating for them.

If you know that you are getting ready to play someone that plays the London System exclusively, even the London System God, Cyrus Lakdawala, would agree with me on this one and he has mentioned before that it's the one case where the London System can actually give White a clearly inferior (not even equal) position.

It's the Modern Defense!

1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Bf4 d6 4.h3 Nc6 5.e3 e5! and now:

A) Best for White is 6.Bg3, keeping the tension.  With the possibility of an eventual f3 to swing the Bishop over to the Queenside, this is better than going all the way back to h2.

B) Most common, and bad, is 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8! and now the Bishop has to move back anyway as 8.Bg5+ f6! 9.Bh4 is even worse for White.  Black has ideas of h5, g5, etc, expanding and making White's light-squared bishop totally useless, he's for all intents and purposes playing down a piece!  The symmetrical position should be no means bother Black!

Here's the opening of a game I played last week against a 2100+ (lost the scoresheet so there might be a misplaced move or two). I knew he was going to play the London so I tried to improve on the KID I used last time against him (which he smashed). This time he through in a novelty on move 7 that really messed me up. The position wasn't too bad for me until my big b6 blunder but he may have been sleeping on me because he's like 500 points higher. Anyways I'm not really much of a KID player and I was wondering what the best way to get a Benoni in would be .  It seems like the London player would have to react at least a little to that 

Interesting. Although the game is even, which is what you want as black. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have a small edge to shove up the Londoner's a$$ - but I'm betraying my impatience. White still has to make a mistake.

Does anyone have a view on whether the KID or the Modern gives the most traction against the London ? The reason I ask is that the London seems to be popular in my parts, and I'm thinking of the Modern as a way to transpose via the Averbakh system - which I consider white's best response - to the KID. This way, if the they play the London, I won't be blocking in the bishop's support of e5...

I play in a chess club where several members like to play the London as white.    My games against the London usually turn into very long and boring positional battles that end in a draw.   YAWN!   So I started looking around for new ideas and discovered some things:  1. Masters and Grandmasters rarely play the London system, and 2; While there are multiple books available that teach how to play it as white, I can't find a single book that discusses how to play it as black!   In fact, nearly everything I've found talks about playing it as white, and this thread is the first resource I've found that actually talks about what to play against it as black.

I was told that high level players avoid it because the London is far more likely to end in a draw than a win for white.  There are a lot of other openings that give white much better chances to play for a win, so most consider the London to be a poor choice.

High level players must figure that playing black against the London is about as hard as falling off a rock since we don't see books and columns on the subject.

I've been reacquainting myself a little with the blacks side. The thing is I believe in the main line, as evidenced by the stats, black does very well. We as club players, if we choose this approach, will be playing against a reverse type of Slav. White players will be have more experience. As such any 'advantage' is one of knowing the territory. In my experience London players just keep playing the same system year after year.

I suppose at the highest level, a player tries to win with white and hold with black. Club level London players rely on their understanding of positions to overcome inherent flaws. Black's recipe still remains to be patient and ultimately regard half a point as black as actually '0.6' as I do or/and a moral victory. Victory against the London or c3 Sicilian tastes particularly nice...

On a specific issue of the London, I note that Simon Williams in his book on the Dutch has some regard for an early Bf4 against this defence. I played through his recommended line for black and wasn't wholly convinced. Interestingly Williams had come out with a Fritz video on the London,so he may have had some nasty experiences with it as black !

The h3 move also gives you somewhere to tuck your bishop. Check out Carlsen's game's with the London.  You get nice pressure on the diagonal that often comes in handy later in the game (h2-b8).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1804746 comes to mind (although this ends in a draw, remember the strength of the players and the nature of the London).

I’ve just written a blog post on an anti-London System based on principles from Chigorin’s Defence:

https://bristolchesstimes.com/2018/01/28/an-anti-london-system-based-on-chigorins-defence/

Hi, I have seen your blog.

Line #4 in particular seems faulty:

- White has two pawns and a massive center for the rook.

- The a1 knight will soon leave the board (white's king is on his way to a1, where he will be very safe)- and then the material will be about equal (knight+ 2 pawns for a rook).

- Black has no great squares for his pieces, his development is not enviable.

- Most important of all: Assuming that the average London system advocate is scared to death by complex positions (although the above one does not look complex to me!) is fundamentally wrong. A lot of London players (e.g. Grandmaster Vlado Kovacevic, author of a London book) are extremely agressive players, who love complications.

Hi

Thanks for the feedback and analysis. Certainly I like the line you highlight for white but I don’t think it’s killer for black. For example, 8...Bd7 9. Qxa1 Nf6 10. Nf3 Bb4 and slight edge to white.

Regarding assuming London players being nervous about open complex positions then you are obviously correct regarding anyone over a certain level e.g. GM Kovacevic. In the article I talk a lot about amateur players (e.g. club players between 1500 and 1900) who trot out the London structure blindly in every game. That’s kind of my point really, that this approach typically results in a style of game that the average amateur Londoner dislikes.

Thanks again for the interesting line.

Woah! Easy there fella! I’m not here to offend anyone so please turn down the accusatory tone. 

The article fully acknowledges its lack of in-depth analysis in all lines and clearly states feedback and exploration of the lines (as per the nice comment and suggestions from IM Pfren). As per most blogs it’s there to start a conversation (not an argument) and adopts an “of interest” vibe.

At no point do I state “the London is clearly refuted”. More my angle (which you can obviously disagree with) is that the line is an attempt to put amateur players in a position that they are more likely to feel uncomfortable in I.e. the classic “out of book”.

Im sure there are plenty of combative, tactical amateur players who would love black to play into these lines (some obviously play at your chess club) but over all you have kind of missed the point of the discussion haven’t you!

9.Qxa1 is barely logical. White is in no hurry to pick the cornered knight, so 9.Kc1 is certainly a better move, and white's advantage looks to me everything but "small".

In the article I refer to the three videos my GM Williams on YouTube with 180,000 Views. In these videos he prescribes a system like approach involving moves such as d4, Bf4, c3, e3, nf3 etc. In my comment above when I refer to “out of book” I’m referring to moving players away from this structure (that in my experience of online, club and tournament Chess) is very prevalent in the intermediate to class A player level.

In the article I echo that c4 is a good move for white so I’m not really disagreeing with GM Kovacevic there either. I don’t understand your point here with me.

Finally, it’s a shame that I have to justify my grade (as per your original aggressive comment) on this forum when all I’m looking to do is start a conversation. In OTB Chess I regularly compete at 1900 level, so yeah I’m no GM but can give most players a good game. 

You say I don’t understand the London so it’s going to be very difficult to agree here. I would urge you to reread my article and then consider if perhaps you over reacted in the first instance. I have made no spurious claims in this line.

Good day to you.

Yeah it’s certainly one of the trickier lines for Black we have found. Perhaps 8...Bd7, 9. Kc1 Nf6 10. Kb1 Bd6 to try to develop Blacks pieces? Thanks for the input. I’ll look in more detail and probably publish a follow up on some lines

Nc3 certainly feels the trickiest to respond to (much like the Chigorin). Perhaps after 5. cxd  then we try 5...exf4 6. dxc6 bxc 

Im not loving Blacks pawns but might be the best line in these 4. Nc3 lines. Thanks again

5...exf4 is certainly better. Black will probably have to drop a pawn after 6.dxc6 bxc6 7.Qd2 Bd6 8.g3!, but at least he will have an active bishop pair, and reasonable places for all his pieces to compensate the pawn and the ugly queenside structure. Still, I think white is better, but the position is quite technical, and as such not easy to handle by class players.

The King's Indian defense is probably the best response to the London system

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.Nc3!? d5 (3...d6 or 3...Bg7 lead to a rather unusual Pirc after 4.e4, but still this is not plain sailing for Black) 4.e3 Bg7 5.h4! is a "Barry attack improved" (the knight is at g1, not f3). This might be equal, like the genuine Barry attack, but Black has to be careful.