Jobava London System

Of course Mark's Opening exists: www.Marksopening.blogspot.com . It's 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Bf4 . It's existed since 2008.

Why do people make up stuff such as the Ruy Lopez or the Queen's gambit or Bird's Opening? What kind of question's that?

There might be no information about Mark on the internet, but there's more than 1 web-site with information about Mark's Opening on the internet.

Are yoy kidding me!? So you wrote a one page blog about an opening that doesn't have anything to do with you, and decided to name it after yourself. You can't be serious.

Just to clear some confusion; opening names are not something you registrer for a copyright. Some openings even have several names.

The first official game i can find on this opening is in 1880'ish. Even Alekhine played it a few times in the 1930's. The idea is not novel in any way. 

Naming usually comes from a Strong player bringing the opening out and using it for good results, or someone who greatly advances the theory on the certain line.

Being called Mark with 0 official highlevel games and 1 short blog-post does not cover either of this.

Jobava and Stefanova does. Even if they didn't truly use it until 2014.

 Naming comes more often from the player who first played it or the player who first analysed it. The 1st person to publish analysis of it was Mark in 2008. That analysis covers every good response from black.

 If some openings have several names, why shouldn't this one be called Mark's Opening aswell as whatever other name people come up with for it? And why 4 different names with Jobava in them, with no credit given to the player who first analysed it? And why not call it the Stefanova Opening? The problem with having more than 1 name is that it causes confusion; people don't know what opening you're talking about if you use a different name for it. So it makes more sense to use the name it was originally given. The name originally given to this opening is Mark's Opening.

  All Stefanova and Jobava have done is built on the ideas already published by Mark.

Everyone calls it jobava, jobava-london, or whatever. That ship has sailed, don't you think?

I think this opening system is kind of Barry Attack . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Attack but Jobava try to add f3 g4 plan after .

I can't tell if this guy's making a bad attempt at trolling, or he's actually that full of himself, but regardless, literally nobody knows who "Mark" is. A quick Google search for this so-called "Mark's Opening" brings up a short blog post that I'm guessing he wrote, and his posts on the Chess.com forums. That's it. Not a single mention of that name by anyone else, let alone a top-level player. It's been played by master level players dozens of times way, way before 2008. And I highly doubt Jobava, who the opening is actually named after, has any idea who this guy even is.

Instead of learning the Jobava London System, look at some of Jobava's games where he plays the Nimzo-Larsesn (1.b3!), alternatively, you could look at playing the Anderssen's opening (1.a3!!) with the white pieces. They both tend to lead to a typical hedgehog set-up

U could add that Mark's analysis are irrelevant.

He gives bad moves from both sides, clearly misunderstanding ideas.

This guy continues after we explain him. Well, he is dumb, that's life after all.

My good friend GM Kotronias advocates against the Jobava (1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bf4) 3...a6 and gives 4 dense pages of very orginal analysis in his new Black repertoire book against 1.d4 (it's based on the Tarrasch defence).

I was playing something similar (3...c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 a6), but Vassilis says that his move order gives Black more options.

Poucin that person they are referring too is mark hebden/ it has been known as the barry attack for some time/ but "someone" was attempting to rename it, in order to sell more books/dvds

later dudes

goommba88

But i guess it would be Hebden-System instead of Mark's opening. Some source (games, books, videos,...) from 2008 and it could have been his name in the opening. Mark could be everyone,  GM Mark Hebden is of course a player to follow in such openings. 

There is already the hebden torre. So he got his name into opening theory. 

Indeed Mark Hebden played many Barry attack (maybe still).

But as we pointed out, Barry attack is different from Jobava attack.

Barry attack is 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4.

In the Jobava, it usually goes 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bf4 g6 4.e3.

The second one is slightly improved for white, since the h4-h5 ideas work more smoothly without a knight at f3- but still the objective evaluation of the position is "equal".

Good remark- corrected.

 It was named Mark's Opening in 2008. Mark was the first person to publish analysis of it. The analysis is comprehensive and sound. As far as I know Jobava had never even played it before 2014.

 Mark's Opening doesn't need 5 names, or even 2. There's no reason to call it anything other than the name it was originally given.

a

Exactly, that's why everyone calls it the Jobava and literally nobody calls it Mark's Opening. Glad that's settled.

Yes, GM Simon Williams has wrote a book on the Jobava not the Mark

As far as I know he made two video courses about the opening, one for chessable and one on his on page, but he didn't wrote a book.

Anyway, because of the corona virus I have a lot of spare time right now and so I started my own Youtube Channel and released two videos about the Jobava-London-System. More videos are planned. I hope you will find them usefull.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3wzoWAakAA&list=PLveGENqWFWNCq5jyTvyTs8zoFb3m192Ij&index=2&t=0s

Best,

Jonny