I already knew this. Thus I never put any effort into it
The London system is like toothpaste
Sort:
lmao! =)
its solid but boring, drawish but complicated, spicy but exhausting opening 💕
Dec 17, 2021
0
#7
B1ZMARK wrote:
The London system is like the last little bit of toothpaste in your tube.
You spend a lot of effort trying to squeeze something out, but when it comes out (if anything does) it’s barely anything.
I hope my analogy made you smile or something lol
It was kind of clever, but I personally just view the London System as a decent way for beginners to reach a playable middlegame while also being able to layer opening ideas into loose middlegame plans.
At the higher levels, I find black's play unambitious - no favorable pawn breaks, passive setup and a lack of imagination while they squander their chance for a more forcing opening as black is under little pressure and can choose their chosen setup against the London.
With all this in mind, it is still a solid opening for white - simply unambitious is all. This is merely my opinion, but perhaps a few others may agree with me 
The London violates the principle to develop knights before developing bishops.
Black can try to punish that with ...c5 and ...Qb6, attacking b2, but then he violates principles himself with the non-central pawn move and the premature queen sortie.
Dec 18, 2021
0
#9
Was thinking
London system is like toothpaste. Tastes pretty good in small amounts, but eating it all the time makes you sick.
Dec 18, 2021
0
#11
horselover123 wrote:
Fuchuina wrote:
hvenki wrote:
blocked and reported
who?
asked?
XD
Dec 18, 2021
0
#12
DrJetlag wrote:
I see an opening as a conversation, or a negotiation.
Interesting. I see what you're getting at if you apply that analogy to playing as black. Thing is, as white it's more of an interview. d4 So tell me a bit about yourself... (whatever the response is,) bf4 Have you ever had a situation where you disagreed with a decision, what did you do? (whatever the response is,) e3 What do you you see yourself doing in 5 years? etc. - It isn't a particularly inspiring interaction, but I'm starting to get an overall impression... I prefer to play Carro Kan/ Slav as black, but that little chat is more like trying to negotiate fair work conditions with a hostile anti-union employer. It's the nature of going second. Going first you have no reason to extend anything at all, because ultimately the conversation must devolve into a hostile debate.
DrJetlag wrote:
tygxc wrote:.
. London players at lower and intermediate levels often just want to get their 'setup' without having to bother about what the opponent is doing.
That's exactly what I do against the london.
Dec 18, 2021
0
#15
DrJetlag wrote:
I see an opening as a conversation, or a negotiation, where you act and react to your opponent, and move orders matter because every move has a purpose. What makes playing against the London so annoying is that it's like having a conversation with someone who is not paying attention to what you are saying. "d4" "Hi, how are you you?" "Bf4" "Nice day today" "Nf3" "What are you up to today?" "e3" "You won't believe who I bumped into today" "Nd2" "Oh, and by the way, did you know that..." "c3" "Are you even listening?" "Bd3" "Never mind...".
That's a very accurate analogy.
Though, that same "robotic" play is (in my opinion) mostly a result of inexperience, and extends to other openings, too (not just the London).
How many players, in that same playing range, are always trying the Scholar's Mate, against every possible defense, for example?
You'll see it quite often. Players will try:
e4, bc4, Qf3. Against nearly everything.
Some King's Indian Defense players are robotic, too. They'll play the same sequence every game, without even hardly glancing at what white is doing: nf6, g6, bg7, d6, 0-0, e5 (or c5).
Perhaps, for a smidgen of variety, they might throw in a few preparatory moves, first. (c6, nbd7...)
But the same "system" approach mindset applies.
Though, a lot of KID players would not like to be compared to London players. Many, in fact, would be insulted by the comparison, even though they both have similar mentalities:
they both trust in their setup, and believe it to be rather universal.
SpeedyCyclone wrote:
horselover123 wrote:
Fuchuina wrote:
hvenki wrote:
blocked and reported
who?
asked?
XD
London players he blocks. Do cheaters prefer the London?
I have just started to play an automatic setup namely the centre counter Qd8, I have played e5 for years and it can get annoying getting a unique position in the first 5 to 10 moves of every single game plus I think it's easier to get to a even endgame instead of being a pawn down or up and I would like to practice even endgames.
oi you
how dare you insult my opening
I play London and I agree. It’s like the toothpaste, or even like a jelly cream. It feels good at the begging and horrible at the end.
Dec 18, 2021
0
#20
IMO the kings Indian is not like the London at all. Sure, the moves to get to the tabiya position are automatic- but the resulting structures revolve around many dynamic and positional plans. Meanwhile in the London the structure hardly ever changes, and when it does change, it is always the same change. Meanwhile in the kings Indian, you can choose from open center (exd4), closed (e5), benoni (c5), etc…
The London system is like the last little bit of toothpaste in your tube.
You spend a lot of effort trying to squeeze something out, but when it comes out (if anything does) it’s barely anything.
I hope my analogy made you smile or something lol