Is London System Good For 900 Elo?

Chances are that you are you as well

Ya

just that simple... maybe for you

Havent seen anyone use retard as a verb in a long time. Nice.  ohhhh my ... Is that dig? A snap? What's next? You going to fire "Your Momma jokes" at me...? Angrypuffer (the tag kind of fits doesn't it? ... keep it civil. None of our words are worth getting a case of the snark's

Opening that fights for the center:

opening that does not fight for the center.

I feel pity for all of the negativity your persona showcases. At least lighten up and learn to take compliments with a smile.

Nothing wrong with the London... You will encounter people who get "butt hurt" when you beat them playing it. Don't be like them... Don't blame an opening on why you lost... it's an excuse.

On this thread people are talking extremes in order to detract people from playing it.

Saying things like.. "it's not an optimal opening" well, any opening that get's the win is optimal ... period! end of that debate. Also stated as fact... it violates opening principles ...  LOL (that was a good one! ) if it did, GMs wouldn't use it and there would be a refutation . There is not! Starting the thread .... Taking the playing of the London opening to an extreme. By using the London as your main opening you somehow preventing your chess growth. Well... if all you do is play the London, and don't study and practice chess fundamentals ... yea sure that is true. But if your going to play organized chess... you are just not going to learn the opening moves of the London and call it quits.

You want to play chess here... Well everything goes here. You will need a opening that is hard to screw with... while you study up on fundamentals ( i.e. an opening that is hard for Black to pull you out of familiar positions that you know) The London fit's that bill.. and there is not one line in the London that Black get's a true advantage... plenty of lines where Black equalizes... that said, Playing the London, you don't memorize lines, rather you learn the strategies and positional themes and concepts, then use them as a weapons and outplay your opponent in the middle game. if the position is equal, so what..... because you are more familiar with the strategies and positional themes and concepts... the advantage is yours. It is easier to win in a equal position, than an inferior position.... Nothing wrong with the London...

lol says the guy guy threw the first stone ... lol ok ... (and... you feel pity for me too... awww thanks )

You are not getting the point.

He should not be studying openings AT ALL, not even the London!

I did not say study the Queen's Gambit and Ruy Lopez, I said play it.

White: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (concepts can be used to explain this. Both sides gain space move 1. Move 2, attack e5, defend e5. Move 3, Attack Defender of e-pawn, etc.

He should NOT be studying Ruy Lopez theory. The reason for playing these 2 openings specifically is they follow CONCEPTS to the letter. If Black does not follow, play moves that follow the concepts. Grab the center. Develop minors first (that rules out the Scandinavian Defense when playing Black). Don't move pieces multiple times except when attacked (like if 3...a6 in the Ruy).

The London he would close his eye and violate opening concepts. For example:

1.d4 e6 - OK, Black did not claim his share of the center, so I should. What stops me from advancing my other central pawn? 2.e4! (Way better than 2.Bf4 from an opening concepts perspective). 2...d5.

Hmmmm, now my e-pawn is attacked. This is where concepts differ from theory. Theory says 3.Nc3 is best, but a 900 should not be learning theory. 3...Bb4 would lead to positions too complicated for a 900 player. A 2000 player should play 3.Nc3 here.

But for the 900 player, who should not be studying openings and is relying on opening concepts, should be saying that he can grab more space and save his pawn by playing 3.e5. After 3...c5, "I need to save my center", 4.c3, etc.

With 1.d4 d5, attacking the pawn with a knight, like against 1.e4 e5, lis useless as the pawn is protected, so let's attack with 2.c4. If he takes me, I get the center with e4, which is what I want, control the center. If de doesn't take, I have as much center as I will ever get, so let's move on to developing minor pieces - 2...e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 (again, where theory differs from concepts - those studying theory would play 5.e3 here, but we are talking concepts here, develop your minor pieces. We will likely play 6.e3 next move anyway because how else do we develop the last minor piece?)

Hope this illustrates that it is not wasting time studying theory by playing the Ruy and QG. You are playing them conceptually, and not to touch a Ruy or QG book. Notice the differences, like move 5 in the QG. Both are OK, but the more conceptual move is not the best theoretically, but he should not be studying theory. He is getting down concepts that he would be violating playing the London System. When he gets to 1800, then worry about the particulars, like why 5.e3 is slightly better than 5.Nf3.

People dislike the london so much because of how boring and repetitive it gets. Playing the same thing over and over again where nothing will really change except for the opponent and whether black plays g6 or not gets very boring. Its much more healthy and fun to play games where the structures can vary, inbalances can happen, games can get sharp, and creativity can happen.

I got your point... I just disagree. But, Yes this did clear up your original post... & Well stated. Understand I'm thinking the same concept but using the London. And I agree... Just using the London in a wrote fashion will get nowhere. If you stick with chess.. You will eventually need to study the other positions the one's you are advocating.

But how do you learn how to serious play the London? by wrote memorization of sharp tactical lines? No....

You learn the London by learning and understanding positional concepts like the "Pillsbury attack etc.. or pawn phalanxes. One could argue (like me) to play the opening effectively there is a lot of fundamental chess you have to know. To play the London seriously you have to be creative just like any other opening.

I'll quote john Cox 2300 FIDE author of "Dealing with d4 deviations"  Not only did I not consider them interesting, I didn't consider them dangerous. Dumb...  he goes on to write: In the 1930s the top guys didn't know whether these openings or the QGD were better. These were the 2700s of their day, they understood chess a lot better than I do (his best 2400+ FIDE) and if something wasn't obvious to them, it was arrogant of me to think it would be obvious to me in OTB play.. I could list easily a hundred 2550+ players who have succumbed to d4 deviations, for these produce as red-blooded a struggle as any, if you are not ready for it, your starting at an advantage.

By the way... his analysis in his book has holes in it, specifically his treatment of the London and the Colle (to be fair... just about any opening tbook has some holes But he writes about that... ) It pays to remember that these guys play these openings all the time, you don't. You will want to stay off the hot theory of the opening - Good or Bad, they will know it better than you, invest in something fairly simple and thematic 

Obviously his opinion about these openings is that they are complex and combative. Doesn't quite equate to the premise of a 'beginner's opening"

I'll add another premise to support my thoughts by GM Ipatov author of "Unconventional Approaches to Modern Chess" Paraphrasing : Thanks' to the democratization of knowledge following technical progress, nowadays everyone knows chess openings. It is getting harder to obtain an opening advantage against a well prepared opponent, even against a non-professional player who knows his lines well. I believe that devoting most of the alotted traing time to studying mainstream theroy is wrong, at that point chess is not fun anymore. more importantly What is the opportunity cost? What other chess knowledge couls a person acquired in that time? .... then he goes on about looking at the chess not in a theoretical sense but in a practical... Getting away from thinking your opponent will always be booked up and playing the best lines.. and if they are... do they know the theory behind the 2nd and 3rd best moves... This goes right where my premise is...

in summery I think there is room for both our opinions to be correct.

Using your comparison:

The London is walking in ankle deep water.

Studying Ruy Lopez and QGD theory is literally throwing you in the deep end before you even learned how to swim. Good luck surviving!

Playing the Ruy Lopez and QG conceptually with no book is like throwing you in the deep end with arm bands or floaties or whatever you want to call them. You will actually learn to swim, beginning with doggie paddle, but you won't drown.

again solid points... while you were posting this I made a few addendums to the post we are discussing... for a further clarification of my thought process.

Advanced players, don't take me bad, but the London is an opening for all levels. While there's a great argument about the principles and patterns you learn at chess, the question is if the opening is good. The London system is a solid opening with easy game plans and hard to take down. In conclusion, it's a good opening. HOWEVER, as pointed by those same players, you need to learn patterns which will help in your future chess games, thus creating an opening diversity is essential. As long the begginer learns the London's simple theory and evicts blunders, they should be fine. Also, i disagree with ThrillerFan reccomending the Ruy Lopez. I mean, it's such a theory heavy opening like the sicilian, that, in my opinion, doesn't seems good for begginers(especially when they progress in chess). Literally, i'm looking to learn and play the Berlin Defense agaisnt any Ruy Lopez players just to evict the theory of the opening. For now, i was pretty much evicting playing 1.e4 e5 games since i was scared of this opening. While it's uncommon to see begginers memorizing a lot of theory, i think this opening should be avoided until intermediate or advanced level.

but the London is an good opening for all levels.*

I cant disagree. I play the London. 1 b3 d5 2 bb2 bf5 .

The reason that thrillerfan doesnt like the london is he plays 1b4...even better for the london.

London is good for any ELO