I hate playing black against super unambitious d4 openings.

No.  It's the blinkered fixation on openings per se that's the overall problem.

The "best" opening is the one you know better than your opponent.  Even if it's the HIPPO, and you play it with both colors, like former WCC Spassky.

Overall, if you're under Expert Level playing strength, it's all just Opening BS.  

So Get Over It.

You'll save yourself thousands of mindless, opinionated, keystrokes.  Very Simple.

I'm arguing the position as a satirical comparison to his original argument against the london system.  If you think the argument is ridiculous, you're right.

I don't play for advantage in the opening, and I have played c3, grand prix attack, closed and open sicilians, smith morra, london system, colle-zukertort, and d4/c4 mainlines.  They're all fine.  Personally I prefer playing 1. d4 with 2. c4, but I can't say that I'd be any worse off with the london system.

As far as the actual score of 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 vs 1. e4 c5 2. f4, we all have access to Game Explorer and the statistics of the win/loss/draw rate in those lines is very easy to look up.  Suffice to say, statistically speaking, choosing 2. f4 does put white at a disadvantage, especially compared to 2. Nf3.

Whether this actually matters at our lowbie (sub 2000 or so) level is unknown (I don't think it does, maybe slightly more for correspondence than other forms of chess), but those are the statistics.

Again personally I don't see anything wrong with any of these openings.  I do notice sometimes when I play the London System OTB it throws my opponent into a fit, much like this guy.  So, that's an advantage right there.

I agree...even on higher club level, the opening is overestimated...I play the Latvian, the Blackmar-Diemer and the Englund and crap like the Gibbins-Weidenhagen-Gambit, sometimes i win, sometimes i lose, but rarely i lose because of the sacrificed gambit pawn...its only a pawn and you get some comensation for it and iam trying to push my opponent out of his comfort zone...

I scored even worse in the past, when i was playing the French or the Scandinavian instead of the Latvian or the Elephant...strange, isnt it?

Maybe when you start to become more ambitious and want to rise up to master level, you have to consider playing main lines...

Except the difference is, you know, one has a reputation for being a fighting game rather than draws.

In our game explorer, 1. d5 ... nf6, 2. Bf4 ... e6 3. Nf3 .... b6

Leave white with a 27% chance to win, 37% chance to draw and black with 35.4% chance to win.

Grand Prix with Bb5 leaves 40.1% for white 20.7%and 39.1% for black.

Huge differences. 

The overall drawing chance after 1. d4 Nf6 is 34%.  Man I guess playing the London System totally kills all of the excitement out of the game, what, with it drawing 3% more than c4.

Statistics don't matter anyway because they are made up with a pool of titled players. They are relevant to players of a certain standard of play and mere trivia to anyone else. But I think in most threads like this people tend to discuss theory rather than practice and they get frustrated when opponents use theoretically 'less ambitious' openings and the advantage doesn't fall in their lap. 

"

I agree...even on higher club level, the opening is overestimated...I play the Latvian, the Blackmar-Diemer and the Englund and crap like the Gibbins-Weidenhagen-Gambit, sometimes i win, sometimes i lose, but rarely i lose because of the sacrificed gambit pawn...its only a pawn and you get some comensation for it and iam trying to push my opponent out of his comfort zone...

I scored even worse in the past, when i was playing the French or the Scandinavian instead of the Latvian or the Elephant...strange, isnt it?

Maybe when you start to become more ambitious and want to rise up to master level, you have to consider playing main lines..."

Only a pawn... Only a pawn?!  Why such disrespect for a humble pawn?  When you're in a position like this will you still say a pawn is just a pawn?

I hope that instructive example taught you well.  Even in cases where two vs. one draws wouldn't you want the opponent to fight hard for the draw instead of being the gambiteer who fights hard for the draw? 

The Tal Gambit while not a complete refutation of 2.f4?! gives white a hard time due to white's horrible d4 square.  Better to play a preliminary 2.Nc3 first. 

I annotated a Kasparov simulation game where he demonstrates to great effect the merits of 2...d5! in the Grand Prix:

Huh, he's right.  The entire game can be found here:

Yes... I got tired of these d4 openings and started playing the passive, boring Old Indian so that i could contest the e5 square.  Not a great way to go, but seems to work for me so far.  Those "wet blanket" d4 openings you speak of do contain some venom, so a bit of respect may be in order!

I played a game with 1. e4  d5-- I have white-- and played 2. d4 just to try and throw my opponent off his game... again, not a great choice, but the resulting positions can get weird!

Ever notice no matter what variations you play, there will ALWAYS be someone around that will tell you how bad your choices are?   Never fails-- but if Carlsen or Nakamura play unorthodox openings, THEN it's genius!

achja wrote:

Your examples look interesting, but getting the London bishop doesn't have to be done with the Nf6-h5 idea. You can also play Bf8-d6 to trade.

Yes, again you can capture the bishop with Bd6, but capturing the bishop is only a means to an end. With the Bd6 trade, black has weak dark squares and white is rid of the bad bishop. Even hxg3 is not so bad as long as white doesn't commit to castle kingside too early. If white is inflexible, then of course black can throw a wrench in the gears. But that's true of any opening.

There are many ways to play chess.  If a player is bored, irritated, or frustrated, they generally don't play as well.  Sometimes I play the Colle or the London because players hate to play against them.  As Black, I see the situation as a challenge.  Our opponents will not always let us have the type of position we want.  Criticizing their play does not accomplish the goal of winning the game.  It broadcasts to our opponents our preferences.

All good points.  You do, however, need some dental work.

touché dude. makes the game so boring. 

If white acts like a passive dingbat, take the initiative!

Black players hate the London System for the same reason White players hate the French. They're too lazy to look up and study a good line against it, so instead of lamenting their own bad attitude, they curse the opening line they can't figure out and that ruins all their fun.