Is London System Good For 900 Elo?

I’ve been trying to learn London System but is it good though? (I’m 900 Elo)

No! A 900 player should stick to the Ruy Lopez and Queen's Gambit from both sides.

They follow opening principles to the letter. At 900, Opening Principles are the answer, not opening theory.

Also, at the 900 level, you should be learning various pawn structures and patterns. Playing the London will basically stunt that critical concept. You need to learn diverse pawn structures, the concept of tension on the board and when to leave tension on the board and when to break that tension via an advance or a trade. Many beginners feel that if a White pawn is on c4 and a Black pawn is on d5, even if both are protected by other pieces in their army, that the must trade or advance immediately, often times when leaving the tension there is correct. You can learn this from the Ruy Lopez and Queen's Gambit, especially the latter. The London will stunt your growth in this area.

You also need to learn about various pawn structures, when color complexes come into play and when they don't, etc.

The London won't help you in these areas. Play the Ruy Lopez and Queen's Gambit from BOTH sides.

what ThrillerFan said

You shouldnt learn openins so much dont waste your time by learning openings just do puzzles start with easy puzzles there is so many free puzzles on the internet or in bookstores you can find but dont waste your time by learning openings and go work on puzzles and also just learn opening principles you need to know how to develop pieces and just it at 900 you just need theese

I going to respectfully disagree with this..

Just getting back into chess.. & in my youth I was 1800s uscf and I did exactly what Thrillerfan is advocating. (I wasted serious amounts of time studying openings and not actual Chess!)

How many black responses are there to 2.c4? (after 1...d5) ABOUT 21 different openings from the Lasker to the Tarrasch and everything in-between. I'm not even talking the Indians or flank responses...

And take up the Black side of the Rut Lopez as a novice?? After 1...e5 you got the King's Gambit, the Center Game, the Bishop's opening, The Scotch, The Italian.. White is NOT obligated to play Bb5! Then you got the Two Knight's game... (right up there with Botvinik's Meran) as far as complexity. that is a lot.

From my own experience...... Studying openings does NOT make you a good chess player !!! it didn't me.... AS a novice ... I went down that road, I got burnt over and over in OTB playing right into my opponent's pet defense. (everyone can memorize a few traps in their favorite defense! and I blundered into them at will) My solution, what worked for me.... was not studying more opening theory to avoid these, but studying actual chess.

I believe as a novice... Pick an opening like the London.. t Stop thinking your opponent is going to play the best lines to thwart it.

let it play itself... then...

pick up at a online used book store... Works like the following : Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals" Lasker's "Manual of Chess" Nimzovich's "My System" Kmoch's "Pawn power in Chess" Geller's "Positional Chess handbook" Keres "Practical Chess endings" then and only after you have worked through these... explore Opening Theory.

Use your games and what you study to improve

Also stay the away from Blitz ! Retards your game...

Every opening which follows the opening principles (get a hold of the center, develop rapidly) is good a for a beginner, and the London is such an opening. But it's not the optimal way to play, because you will always be at "lazy mode" in the opening.

1.e4 is the way to go, and you won't need to study openings at any considerable depth.

Botvinnik's Meran? There is no "Botvinnik's Meran", you have the Botvinnik or the Meran.

semantics being what they are:

D44: Queen's Gambit Declined semi-Slav, Botvinnik system (anti-Meran)

Yes, the London is good at any level.

Its positionally sound, but if you want to have fun then pick up something else because it can get very boring and repetative. If black knows the Qb6 lines then its very common for you to go into dry endgames where its equal or worse

Every opening should also be fighting for the center, which the london does not do.

Its more like ¨Botvinniks Anti meran.´ Where botvinnik choose a unpopular sideline (Bg5,) which eventually became very popular and theory filled, to the point where it became the main line.

In what sense does the London not follow opening principles? I can't think of any possible reason.

Chances are that you are cross-eyed.

@18

In rapid and blitz everything goes.

@16

The London violates the opening principle knights before bishops.
Attempts to punish that involve ...c5 and ...Qb6, which also violates an opening principle to not play the queen early.

@15

"Black has 2.e6, c6, Nc6, Nf6, Bf5. and dxc4 Everything else is bad"
++ 2...Nc6, 2...Nf6, 2...Bf5 are bad as well.

"Knights before bishops" is not a real opening principle, it's just nonsense. Virtually every opening violates it, up to and including your favorite, the Ruy Lopez (Bb5 comes before developing the b1 knight).

@21

Knights before bishops is a real opening principle devised by Steinitz, Lasker, Tarrasch ('Springer hervor!')...
It makes much sense: the bishop is better at its initial square than the knight.
The Ruy Lopez follows it: Nf3 before Bb5, Nbd2 before Bc1 moves.