Is the London system good?

S

Ask Kramnik

As black it's an easy game which is basically equal and totally predictable. I don't see why you'd play the London in an online setting other than because you don't want to study the opening. Even if you accept an equalish game there are far more interesting / challenging options... the nimzo larsen, for example, is far more interesting.

Hello 👋

yeah, just so bored

London is buns

Like all sound openings, it is fine IF you know how to play it (which usually isn't the case). #9 is right.

I'd rather the London than the Nimzo-Larsen, as Black or as White, because regardless of community perception about how boring and passive it is, best play from both sides in essentially every viable line requires active counterplay. If you play 5. Nbd2 Qb6, best play as White is to offer the Poisoned Pawn and best play as Black is to accept it. If you play 5. c3 Qb6 6. Qc2, best play as both sides is to enter an incredibly sharp line requiring precise calculation to escape the tension unscathed.
I'm sure you could find a few lines where this isn't the case, but unlike the Nimzo Larsen, in which Black can simply choose to play 1... e5 2... d6 3... exd4 with equality and no way for White to press for an advantage, if Black attempts to play passive in the London, White has attacking chances due to still having center control and good piece placements. I find this all the time, as I play the London on occasion from both sides, and the amount of people who'll try to play the Symmetrical London or try to force the pawn triangle with c3 and think they're playing a sound opening is laughable.

there are lines like this all throughout the London. It's not an incredibly sharp opening. It is an incredibly predictable opening. The Qb6 line can be sharp... black is also trouncing white in that variation, and it's black who chooses to enter it. But for the most part the London leads to the same basic sort of position and is just very predictable / not interesting.
The Nimzo Larsen you usually get a queenside castle / attack, and it at least has the advantage of being rare to see so the patterns are less typical.
You can play pretty much anything and make it work, but when we consider the field of options, including their different qualities, and compare them to one another... the London is very boring.

These lines look alot more interesting, btw -

My opponent: plays the london system

Me: again playing against a kid but how is this so op

The London System is a decent opening! There is no refutation by black, there is no line that compromises white's first move advantage.

I've won a lot against the London, and really good players playing the London have lit me up as well.

It's a popular D pawn variant...

According to Arlene Toth, one of the top chess coaches in the West....With the advent of modern chess engines, proffesionals are finding it extremely difficult to get a theoretical advantage in main line openings. They are now playing for positions of depth and scope. HENCE, the popularity of the London at the top.

I TRULY believe that outside of suspect Gambits, all openings and defenses are playable up to GM level.

I play the Colle... not in a wrote fashion, but strategically, fully expecting that where prudent I must transpose. To play the London seriously.... you will have to do the same. DON'T LET THE NAY SAYERS, convince you not to play the London if you like it. To get good at playing it, you will need to study the themes surrounding it... and not memorize various moves

I always found the London System fascinating. But it always struck me that typically the dark-squared bishop gets exchanged early in the game. And one of my objectives was to keep the bishop pair. Another objective was to keep all the pieces on the board for a highly tactical middle game. So I devised another opening that keeps the bishop. Instead of 1. d4 2. Bf4 now we play 1. d4 2. h3! We then typically develop the knight to f3 and the bishop to f4, in that order. Now black cannot touch our bishop because it has an escape on h2. And if Bd6 we play Ne5, blocking the exchange. That's why we develop the knight before the bishop. So it is a different system derived from the London. This completely works and is evaluated at -0.27 by Stockfish, so it is fine up to the highest levels.

Yep

I play it all the time. Even if black castles queenside or fianchettoes on the kingside, the London is great to follow for a strong development, and after castling, you're in a relatively strong position for the middlegame.

It’s okay, but there are better openings.

On a tier list of openings, it won't be up with the Ruy, Sicilian, QGD, Nimzo-Indian. It would be down at C-level: playable, uninspiring, routine.

It is only good when used properly. Those that use it as a system against everything are not very bright.

The London is best against 1...d5.

The London is OK against 1...Nf6 defenses.

The London is Dubious against the Dutch.

The London is outright bad against the Modern Defense - even the London Guru, Lakdawala, will tell you not to use it against the Modern.