London system? Is it flexbile?

That Petroff gives "chances" of an equal game is exactly my point. 

There is whole bools about nothing else then how to get a small edge. Why bother, if we can get a similarly equal position without any memorisation.

You are wrong about Meran. If you don't know the theory for at least 20 moves, you will go down in flames. I don't care if you deny that, just look in the Quality chess semi-slave books. No way that you can find those lines over the board without preparation. The GMs struggles with this. 

Again, play what you like, I respect that, but don't tell me that 1.e4 and 2.d4 gives you an adge against Petroff. Anand don't know how to do it

I've played the London almost exclusively for over the last 20+ years and will continue to do so. I agree that one must be careful not to slip into "autopilot" from time to time because it is a system and one can become a little too lazy.  If that is happening with you, my suggestion is to purchase IM Lakdawala recent book on the London. The book contains many new fresh and interesting ideas that haven't been covered in other books. For those of you who think that the London is too boring and passive, studying this book may give some of you an entirely different perspective.  Plus, I find his sense of humor refreshing when studying. Levity is a good thing, wish he would write a book on endgames.

Playing a Reversed Slav (London System) is a easy way to cut your opening preparation in half.  Best book currently on the market is Johnsen and Kovacevic, Win with the London System, (Gambit, 2005), about 170 pages.

I've been playing it for about year.  I focus on endgames, and win through pawn promotion.  IMO, openings are a black hole for your study time.

If you prefer a "sharper universal system," buy Tony Kosten, The Dynamic English, (Gambit, 1999 and reprinted 4 times).  It recommends you play the "Botvinnik Formation" against (almost) everything that Black can throw at you.

But English/Sicilian Theory is very large.  So you'll probably also need Mihail Marin, The English Opening, Volume One, (Quality Chess, 2009), to use as back up.  It's about 470 pages.

Arguably, the "best opening" is the one you know, and your opponent doesn't.

You build your opening repetoire starting with the Black pieces, then if you want to save lots of study time, you turn those same systems round, and play them from the White side.  Simple.

As with other comments above, I don't spend more than 10 percent of my study time on openings.  And you can always add more openings to your repetoire, whenever you choose.

IMO, the advantage of the first move is largely meaningless at ratings below USCF 2000.  But lots of folks will disagree, vehemently. 

I think Kosten's book may be the gold standard for intermediate players seeking a reliable repertoire without resorting to openings a GM wouldn't touch with a ten foot pawn.

But for those interested, the bolded above simply isn't true.  The Botvinnik stuff is kind of Kosten's default, for lines where black doesn't force a particular line or style of play in order for white to maintain hope of advantage.  But there are a number of important lines where he recommends fully independent systems, e.g., the Reversed Dragon and Keres lines.

Yes, about 10 percent of the time Kosten recommends something different.

And that's where Marin's book takes over.  Q.E.D.

I agree with you 100 percent.  The English and Sicilian theory is just too big to handle effectively.  Kinda like the KID.  Just massive opening theory.

Whenever I want to give up my life, I'll start playing the English with white, and the Sicilian and KID with Black.  But only after I retire from my day job. 

But some folks just love the complications, and so many people (and coaches, and obsessed buyers of opening books) on this site INSIST that if you don't play openings like these, you playing strenght will STAGNATE.  Blah, blah blah.

Buy hey, chess players are a notorious contrarian lot.  So no surprises there.

Your point about what to do with the white pieces (when you have a (+=) slight advantage is spot on).

It's only a small advantage if you know the theory 20 moves deep, and can handle that particular position "like a GM."  Otherwise it just a very confusing middlegame position for you to lose your way.

I gave up playing the (c3) Alapin versus the Sicilian for precisely that reason.  I couldn't handle the resulting (slight advantage) positions from the white side.  Just too complicated and demanding.  So why bother?  Because it will make me a more pure chessplayer by keeping the first move advantage as white??

Sorry, I don't drink that Kool-Aid.

Gah! I spent 30 minutes typing a speech and annotating a game I played on the Black side against a London type setup, then when I got around to post it, it got lost somehow! Grr! Long and short: Although I do not play it as White, I understand the ideas are easy to learn and the system can be played with confidence by club level players. That's key; I have lost to lower rated players who played this setup...but I dont blame openings for wins or losses. When I lose out of the opening it is because my opponent knew what they were doing and I did not. So I had to do a little "booking up" ; the London seems to have a built in kingside attack for white. I got some help from the awesome book by Lev Alburt, Roman Dzindzichasvili and Eugene Perelshteyn: Chess Openings for Black, Explained. A lot of good ideas there! 

So here is the game, only lightly annotated now because this is my second attempt at a reply . It was played OTB in round 2 of our local club championship just yesterday. Winning a pawn and trading off to a better endgame is fine, but when your opponent resigns, with all of his pieces on the board and 2 of yours off, plus 2 more of your pieces hanging to boot, well, it doesnt get any better then that in my opinion 

No, this is London. OK, let me think

Interesting that you played Qa5. I definately takes the pawn: dxc5.

Maybe the debate in this loop was about 'strict London lines' (e.g., not considering a line such as this one). To me, its about playing 2. Bf4 and then following up with whatever that gives me the most promising play

Hi, I agree with much here.

• Playing ambitios openings will eat your soul, since you can't rely on simple 'feeling' (whatever other forum participants claim, this is simply the truth). You instead need to check and re-check lots of demanding lines, and that will never go away. 
• Kosten's book, and Marin's, are interesting in this contect. I played Kosten's rep for a while. I liked a lot of it, except the sym lines and meeting the slav. So, when Marin's three volumes came, I bought them. And, do you know what; my playing strenght declined. Because, Marin required me to study much longer lines than Kosten. And, actually, Marin's lines where not that good always. Many of his suggestions (e.g., versus Keres) didn't give more than roughly equality (just check the chesspub 20 pages of forum discussions). Or start Houdini. I love Marin as a chess writer (one of the absolute best), but this is not his best work imho. And my point is; why study Marin 99% of my time, if I can get similar positions from spending 10% of my time on Kosten?
• Agree on the usefulness of focusing on the Black rep. Much more critical
• 1st move advantage is not a big deal, often below some threhold (perhaps 2000). Why not start the game at move 30 in an equal position, and wait for a grave endgame error?  

Hey, I think you misunderstands our arguing. We say this: 

• We take our chances in a less known system (which doesn't require us to study hard the first 10 moves, but instead allows us to learn the 100 most theoretical rook ending principles in depth). 
• Furthermore, you allow equality by playing 1.e4, since we can reply with Petroff. And this is a state-of-the-art reqognized EQUALISER for black. Maybe most of your opponents don't play it, so you get winning chances, but if all opponents played Petroff, you would get a very high drawing precentage. 

Marin's work is much more ambitious (it is a GRAND MASTER rep). Kosten's is surely quite easy to learn, in particular the Botvinnik, if you ask me. You take a strong control over d5, then gets in f4, or a3 and b4, expanding on the queen side. I think it is an excellent system. The problem for me was rather to meet Keres defence, and the slav lines (in pure english schemes).

I never understood why classical Queens gambit would give anything. Exchange two pieces early, and then try to use some academic vague 'advantage' over the next 40 moves. 

zborg, your posts are spot on. Agree completely

Lol has anyone answered the OP yet? I dont really play it so I cant tell you what the ideas behind it are; I would reccomend reading "David Copperfield" by Charles Dickens, then perhaps follow it up with some classic science fiction by Asimov or Heinlein. Good luck! 

If you're a QP player, then you're probabably pretty familiar with the Colle system and its inherent bad c1 bishop. It stays locked to the back rank, generally delegated to a defensive role, and often keeping the rooks out of communication. The question is what to do with the bishop, without creating a weakness? You could just put up with it & eventually move it to d2, but in the Colle, thats usually a square for your knight, so you have to wait til the knight has decided to move along on his business before taking over the square with the bishop. So as you can see, the bishop while adding some defense, it really seems to be just getting in the way of your rooks. So you have some choices of things to try - b3, to try fianchettoing to a more active role, or an early Bg5 (Trompowski) or slightly less aggressive perhaps Bf4 (London). To say it is less agressive, doesn't mean less useful. Bg5 appears to mean to simply trade off the bad bishop for the kings knight as soon as it is challenged by the h6 pawn. But The f4 bishop appears to try and find a more active role in the middlegame than simply defending or suiciding on the first piece that happens along.

You could look at it as similar to the reverse stonewall where instead of pressuring e5 (or supporting your knight there) with the f4 pawn push, the support is given instead with a more flexible bishop, and without the potentially risky weakening of your kingside pawn structure. With a black knight on f6, you should be mindful of his desire to move to h5 to attack the bishop, so an early h3 push might be handy to give your bishop somewhere to go and still keep his influence on the e5 square.

Best thing to do is just play it a few times, and learn from experience what you think it's strong points vs weak points are. good luck!

try the Colle-Zukertort....it's more flexible and aggressive