Stonewall all day!
London system or the Stonewall attack?
Sort:
“... stonewall ...” - Richard Nixon
Even though there are many ways to "refute" the Stonewall, while London is actually a good system.
Marvel1810 wrote:
Hi all, I am curious about the two chess openings as I have been playing the London system and have come across the Stonewall attack. I wondered which is better in
1) KIng Activeness
2) Aggressiveness
3) Defence
4) King safety
5) Popularity ( How often do d4 players play it?)
6) Whether it is easy to counter
7) How rare the counter is
8) How Passive it is
I will appreciate if you would put the number of the point you are answering. Thanks
- They tie for king activeness
- Stonewall is hyper-aggressive in the hands of those who do not understand it.
- It is much easier to defend against the stonewall.
- If your king isn't active it will be safe in both systems.
- London by far.
- Stonewall is easy to neutralize. One can get fighting positions against both.
- Depends on rating level.
- Neither are passive.
RussBell wrote:
... Similarly for "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" by Mauricio Flores Rios.
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-structures-a-grandmaster-guide/
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7495.pdf
RussBell wrote:
... Pawn Structure Chess by Andrew Soltis describes and analyzes the major pawn structures arising from the opening and their implications for how to plan. ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708101523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review908.pdf
r2d2bb8 wrote:
Even though there are many ways to "refute" the Stonewall, while London is actually a good system.>>
No, you can't refute a sound opening. I have my preferred method against it and I usually get complete equality but that's because I understand the defence I'm playing ok, and it's no different from any opening that in intelligent hands it can cause serious threats. I don't use the Stonewall because I want to be able to play major book lines against any of black's tries against 1. d4 2. c4 and if possible I would like to be winning out of the opening.
kindaspongey wrote:
... I have seen a number of 21st century books advocating the London and only one 21st century book advocating the Stonewall Attack.
In case anyone is wondering, the Stonewall book was Chess Psychology: The Will to Win by William Stewart.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105336/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review901.pdf
Stonewall performs fairly well at lower levels. Once you start facing competent opponents, though, the Stonewall tends to lose its bite.
The London, on the other hand, remains versatile, with good attacking potential, all the way up to the SuperGM level.
Some superGM will champion the Stonewall one day, just for a joke.
kindaspongey wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
... I have seen a number of 21st century books advocating the London and only one 21st century book advocating the Stonewall Attack.
In case anyone is wondering, the Stonewall book was Chess Psychology: The Will to Win by William Stewart.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105336/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review901.pdf
Unfortunately, I purchased this book. In terms of learning the Stonewall Attack, its not worth the paper it is printed on. Just a few pages (6 pages to be exact), are devoted to Stonewall Attack, with the most superficial possible treatment. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the entire book is/was a total waste of money. If you want to learn the Stonewall Attack, you will do much better to check out the resources on it that I had posted earlier in this forum thread.
London system or the Stonewall attack?
looking at this I thought the question would be:
what is the most boring chess opening setup there is...
GM Simon Williams (aka "GingerGM") plays and teaches the London System....
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gingergm+london+system
Magnus Carlsen has played the London System many times against world-class competition.....(apparently not inferior or too boring for him)....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcMSaK4dy00
"... A typical way of choosing an opening repertoire is to copy the openings used by a player one admires. ... However, what is good at world-championship level is not always the best choice at lower levels of play, and it is often a good idea to choose a 'model' who is nearer your own playing strength. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
One needs to recognize what pawn structures they are best at. Blocked, Mobile, Static, Open, or Dynamic" and play openings that lead to those structures.
What is the best way for someone to figure out what structures they are best at? Is there a structured approach to figuring this out, or is it just play a bunch of different openings until you find one where you don't lose as much/"feels" better, etc.?
Pawn Structure Chess by Andrew Soltis describes and analyzes the major pawn structures arising from the opening and their implications for how to plan. Similarly for "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" by Mauricio Flores Rios.