London System

Hey guys,

I am 16 years old and I come from Germany. I have play chess for one year. My DWZ is 1086. In every chess game in torunaments, I played the Queensgambit. But I would like to play another opening, too. The London System! I am a solid player. I will never play kings gambit or other openings, which are very sharp and riskful. So I asked a good chess trainer in Germany (2400 Elo), if the London System is good for my chess development. He answered: Yes, of course. There are a lot of other chess players, who play this System. But in many german forums i read, that this System is not good for the development. If you play this System, you will not be better. Is it right? 

So long as you are willing to vary between the London System and Queen's Gambit as white, you should be fine.

Chess players, when they say the London System is not good for chess development, are directing their comments to those players who only want to play the London system as white.

Hi Luke,

I'm also German, chess trainer, and 100 points below 2400. My advice: Play classical chess, which means Queens Gambit if you opt for 1.d4. The London System has its merits, it's a universal set-up that allows you to play more or less the same moves against virtually anything. And while there are many ways to equality for black, it's not easy to beat this set-up.

But there lies the disadvantage of this system for a learning player. Instead of learning to place your pieces according to concrete circumstances: Bishop to f4, g5 or leave it at c1, Knight g1 to f3 or e2, when to exchange on d5 or maybe play c4-c5 at some point. As a learning player you will make many wrong decisions in these fields, and that way you will have the opportunity to learn a lot in these fields. You won't have nearly as many such opportunities when you always play Bf4, e3, c3.

a system is exectly  that get youre peices out learn the positons best middle game player wins like the london blurs with 150 attack, barry milner gambit, chigorin defense, the colle, philador defence to name a few when you become a strong player like Rumo75 then it is time to lern more tradition openings! 

I have played the London-System for many years with good success in OTB-games before i switched to the Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit.

There are two commen mistakes about the London:

1.) The universal-set-up

Of course it has a universal basic set-up with Bf4 and e3, most times with c3 and Nbd2.

But also in the London-System you have to modify your set-up, depending on which type of position black chooses.

For example, If he builds up in a "QGD" style with d5, e6, Nf6 and 0-0 you have to place the bishop on d3, you normally dont have to play h3 and sometimes you support your kingside-attack with f4 after the bishop went from f4 to g5 or g3.

If he build up in kings-indian style with g6, Bg7 and d6, you have to place your bishop on e2 instead of d3 and you have to play h3 to retreat your dark-squared bishop to h2 after black plays e5 or Nh5.

In some cases its useful to play c4 instead of c3 and place the Knight on c3 instead of d2, for example when Black plays an early Nc6 without moving the c-pawn before.

2.) The London-System is lame and only made for positional play

Of course its not...i have alwaxs tried to play for a kingside-attack, espesciall against the most common set-up wih d5, e6 and 0-0. 

WIth Ne5, f4, bringing a rook on the h-file and the queen to g4 or h5.

In my opinion its a prefect choice for beginners who dont have the time to study endless hours on the QGD, ending in a position where th opening book stated "and white has a slight advantage", but they dont know why...

So Luke, learn the London-System is very easy and you save your time for learning middle- and endgames.

If you are improving you can learn more complex openings later.

Playing the London System "exclusively" is not a good idea.  It suffers the same problem as the King's Indian Attack, where you end up with virtually the same position every time.  To get good at chess, you must be able to understand various pawn structures.

It also has the reputation (which is false) of being good against anything.  Even Cyrus Lakdawala, a London System Guru, agrees that there is one defense where the London System is no good, and that's the Modern Defense, mainly because of 1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Bf4?! d6 4.e3 Nc6 (or 4...Nd7) followed by 5...e5!

So like the person mentioned above, if you keep the QG in your reportoire, you should be ok, but don't abandon it.

I myself am currently playing a system-type approach in my OTB games, but a lot depends on how Black responds, so I don't just have 1 opening.  It is as follows:

1.d4 and now:

- Dangerfield Attack - 1...f5 2.Bf4
- Torre Attack - 1...Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 (or 2...e6, 2...d6, or 2...b6) 3.Bg5
- Zukertort - After 1...d5 or 2...d5 (like 1...Nf6 2.Nf3 d5) with 3...e6, 1...d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3
- Slow Slav - 1...d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c6 4.c4
- Anti-Benoni - 1...c5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Nf3 w/o c4

So notice that systems are ok if they are used properly, but to try to use any of them exclusively is a very poor idea!

For example, the Colle against the King's Indian setup, the London against the Modern Defense, and the Torre against 1...d5 are all very dubious ideas!

Thrillerfan is right. Plus, it's quite dull!

Thank you for your long answers :). The main reason why I switch to another opening is a fear. This fear is that I will not be better in chess, when I play always the QG. I have aims in my life. I will reach the 2000. And for this high Elo, I need a good chess development. That´s the reason. Can anybody add anything? Or can anybody give me an advise?

Case in point for Message #6.  Notice that I based my opening on Black's response, not some pre-meditated idea.  The ...c6 lines are a typical "Anti-Colle", so you don't force the Colle, you play what is called the Slow Slav (the Slav with 4.e3, by transposition).  Below is my over the board rated game from last night (Time Control Game in 90 minutes with 5 second delay).  I did indeed have White, again, it being a Slow Slav, and White actually proceeded to checkmate Black in 53 moves.

http://www.charlottechess.com/games2/1300.htm

You wanna teach a "Slow Slav" to a beginner with a rating of 1000...great idea...this will help him alot...

You don't get the point at all.

It's not about trying to teach the Slow Slav.  It's about remaining flexible, and especially at the level of the OP, he should be learning opening concepts and remaining flexible, not memorizing reams of London or Queen's Gambit theory.  I'm an expert, and even our game was out of book in the single digits.  That's the point!  Opening Concepts and Flexibility is what it's all about!

Dark_Falcon is one of those freaks who likes the Englund Gambit.  Ideas like "Opening Concepts," "Flexibility," and "Learning" will be completely lost on him.

I think playing just different openings will help your progress in the long run. Recognizing patterns/concepts which can be used and such.

Do you mean e4 and d4 openings or a lot of d4 openings?

Anything. 1.c4 1.d4 1.e4 1.b3 1.Nf3

Hi Luke,

My advice is to play what you "feel" is best suited for your character, not what others (people or databases) say is best or not. This applies to the London System and systems in general.

I believe you shouldn't follow any system of moves but instead a system of "philosophy". So you feel you're a solid player? So play solid moves. Or you always go for the jugular? So always try to claim the initiative.

But you must always understand the moves you make (both logicaly and intuitively). For instance, I find myself playing the London System a lot, not because of principle, but because (according to the way I am) it makes sense after certain replies by my opponents, namely ...d5, ...Nf6 and e6, etc. However, like somebody else mentioned, it just seems wrong after ...d6 or/and ...g6.

Basically, what I mean is that it's better to be lazy and play natural moves (according to yourself) than to be lazy and play system moves (according to others).

Hope this helped.

Cheers!

To put it very clearly: On a rank of "openings suited to raise a player's chess understanding, that goes from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest), the 10 would without any doubt go to Ruy Lopez and Queen's Gambit, while London System would rank somewhere between 1 and 2. Queen's Gambit is a classical opening that was used by every world champion in history, while London System is a set-up to avoid having to learn and think too much. Your question about what is better suited for improvement is like asking: what is healthier, eating 20 sausages every day, or a mix of fruits, vegetables, and the occasional fish?

Yes, ive played the London-System for many years...with good success. Now i play crappy openings like the Blackmar-Diemer, the Latvian and the Englund and you play your high-fashioned standard openings.

So what have you achieved spending hundreds of hours on Opening Concepts while i have spend my time on more important things in life than chess?

Your ratings are not better than mine...so well done, mate!

Many efforts, less success...

In my opinion the London-System is perfect for a player rated 1000, because the stupid learning of 20-moves deep main lines in standard openings gives you nothing, except when you have 20 hours per day to study chess....

There is no need to play the London for your whole life, when you improve you can study more complex openings.

But when players around a rating of 1000 play chess, the choice of opening will rarely decide the game. Much more the player, who loses less pieces will win...