London System

It's ok to try different things. Just don't get caught up in opening theory. Play what seems interesting and makes sense to you. If something is wrong with it you'll figure it out. 

When I started out I played the king's gambit and queen's gambit because I liked having lots of space for the pieces when they took a pawn. 

Uh. Well, I don't know any 20-move line in the Queen's Gambit that require studying, not to mention on a DWZ 1000 level, but I'm sure that's just due to my lack of knowledge. 

Yes, maybe you are right...its due to your lack of knowledge...oh, sorry, now i see, you are a fide master, so you cant be wrong...

I don't see how you could believe anything else. Every variation of the queen's gambit, including the complicated Ragozin and Vienna, leads to some kind of pawn structure and then you simply play it. Having knowledge of the pawn structure allows you to play at least somewhat accurately without needing any theory. 

A common strategy is to play the Tartakower defence, aim for hanging pawns and then wing it. Zero preparation is necessary apart from watching a few games. Kasparov is the guy I watch but there are others that played it a lot as well.

And besides Falcon, I remember a thread in which you and Pfren were reciting BDG theory 16 moves deep and in multiple lines. I don't see how that's different than these illusive 20-move queen's gambit lines you're talking about.

The only Queens Gambit variation that comes to my mind, in which learning loads of theory is necessary, is the Vienna. Now we are talking about a rating level below 1100. The idea that you need to study Vienna theory anywhere below 2000 is simply ridiculous. I would not even consider going there, and sorry to say that, yes, I am rated 1200 points higher than Luke. Queen's Gambit Exchange Variation for example is strategically rich, an opening of World Champions, and all you need to know is ideas.

For sure, you dont need to learn 20-move-lines in QGD Exchange variation, because its a simple concept compared with other more complex variations in the QGD, buti dont think that the exchange variation gives you more chance for an advantage than the London-System. But yes, to be more flexible in the openings you can learn both systems, especially for beginners the exchange variation is a good choice.

Hey Titan! Of course the BDG is a theory monster if you wanna know each line exactly.

Ive started to play it about 2 years ago as i purchased the Book from Scheerer.

I was surprised how many different lines are important to study and because i havent much time i only took a look at the main lines and learned by playing the BDG, analysing the games afterwards while comparing my moves with the theory book.

But iam still far away from playing the BDG perfect, although iam very pleased with my correspondence, blitz and OTB-results with it.

I consider myself a good and experienced amateur player, so i can handle some theory, although not as deep as i should learn it.

But in thread we are dealing with advices for a novice, so if you arent able to deal with a complex middlegame, you should spend more time on learning it as to study hours and hours with opening concepts.

Ive made the same mistake when i was young...openings are thrilling, but when the book states at the end of the variation "and white is better" and you dont know why, then it isnt worth anything.

Yes, the Ziegler-variation can be really annyoing for white in the main line...from my personal experiences i can say that the Alchemy-variation with 8.Ng5 gives you the best practical chances, although with best play from both sides, white is still fighting for a draw...

OK. I am making a new repertoire. Openings for e4 and d4. 

e4: Spanish and modern italian (c3, d3 constructer)

d4: Queens Gambit and exchange variation, london system/ Colle

What is the different between london and colle system? I have heart that the london system is an improvement of colle? 

For Black:

d4: d5 and classical declined Queens gambit?

e4: ??? I do not know. French, Caro kann, ... Petrov defense is good, but... the opening choice against e4 is difficult for me. There a lot of openings but there are only a few where I feel well.

I don't mean to be rude, but this must be in an alternative dimension very far from ours. Queens Gambit Exchange has been played a lot by guys like Kasparov, Topalov and Aronian, and occasionally by most elite players. London System has been used a lot by Kamsky, to beat opponents by good technique and practical strenght from equal positions. Queens Gambit Exchange is very rich strategically: You can play on the queenside with b2-b4-b5, in the centre with e3-e4 with or without f3 as preparation, on the kingside with Ne5 and f4 and 0-0, on the kingside with 0-0-0. Queen's Gambit Exchange is an opening line where you go for the maximum.

London System: Bishop on f4. Colle: Bishop stays on c1, in order to see daylight after a later e3-e4. Colle-Zuckertort: Bishop is developed to b2. Strategically the latter is in my view the most interesting, white directs both bishops to black's kingside, which can lead to good attacking chances there.

I think, from your point of view and from the quality of chess you normally see, you are right.

But when i watch games in the OTB-class where i normally play on club level (Verbandsklasse und Bezirksoberliga), the QGD exchange is often a very dry and boring game.

And Luke will surely play some leagues beyond my classes, as he said he has a DWZ-rating of 1086 (i actually have round about 1850).

So i dont think that most of the players on this level are aware of the ideas youve mentioned, but yes, they can learn them when they come to a higher level.

Funny that you mention that. I've been training a couple of players between 1500 and 2100 for awhile, and one of them had Queens Gambit Exchange on the board in half of his team games (mostly with white), which incidentally were played in Verbandsliga. As he scored 1/5 in these games, I decided to dedicate a 2-hours session on this opening/middlegame subject.

What's funny, in all five games, black played h7-h6 early in the opening. And only in one of them (where our guy was black), white exploited the defects of this weak move by castling long, which led to a huge attack.

So you are right in a way, four of these fives games were no less dull than what I'd expect from a QPO like London System or Colle. But after this training, the boy agreed that he would certainly never castle short after black's mistake - which he will certainly meet again rather sooner than later.

I may be biased, there is no guarantee that playing London System is worse for a beginner than playing Queen's Gambit - though I can hardly imagine any scenario where it is better. Personally I find it important to establish a certain chess culture/philosophy as early as possible: Go for the maximum. When you can pressure the other player's centre with c2-c4, force him to a concession (which in most cases means either giving up the centre or incarcerating the bishop c8), why put a pawn on c3 instead? In my view, it makes sense to start with classical chess, and only when you have gained enough understanding in that area (possibly) switch to stuff like QPOs or flank openings. 

A lot of people in these topic said: Queens gambit and london system is not the best opening for a beginner. What´s the right opening?

The Bongcloud. Look it up.

There is no best opening. Try them out and you will see which opening you will like best.

The only thing is, dont play those bad openings like Latvian Gambit.

Just stick with Queen's Gambit, there isn't anything better. And don't focus too much on openings anyway. Concentrate on tactics and middlegame.

Sorry, that i dont agree...but for experienced club players, who like to play in uncommon and unbalanced positions the Latvian is a perfect choice.

There are quite a few critical lines for Black, but its not easy to find them and black has many options to meet an unprepared white player by surprise.

Do you personally know all the so called refutations?

The discussion about the Latvian goes for 100 years now and i think its not coming to an end.

But in one point you are right, its definitely not an opening for beginners.

100% agreed as i already stated above...

I have think a lot if the London System is the right opening for me and the answer is: "No"!

Why? Because I have better results with the Spanish enxchange variation. I have started every game in my season with d4 (Queens Gambit). I do not know if d4 or e4 is right or better for me. So I play Queens Gambit and Ruy Lopez (exchange variation). I must say that I feel better in positions, where the board is not full with pieces and pawns. So closed games like Indian Defense and QG are not the best opening for me. But I have good results with QG, too.

Blackmar Diemer Gambit for example is an opening which I like because I love it when someone sacrifices material for initiative and assault. 

I am studying the book "The amateur´s mind" by Jeremy Silman. Ther I have learn a lot about positional play therby I know how to play in closed games. 

Yes I know I should not focus on openings but I have to make a repertoire. So the exchange Variation in the Ruy Lopez is my fave opening (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6). Should I play the QG, the Ruy Lopez or the Blackmar Diemer Gambit? I am overwhelmed! Can anybody help me?