Forums

The London System Thread

Sort:
magipi
ibrust wrote:

(...) the fact that Dings prep was lazy, I've already acknowledged multiple times that it could make sense to play for a lazy person - again, not merely my opinion, it's an opinion Hikaru himself voiced. Considering how much prep is needed to play the WC there is some motive here. And the London also sidesteps so much prep, which is another advantage when you're crunching a set of new lines for a specific tournament. Again a lazy mans solution which wouldn't apply outside a tournament setting.

This is also complete nonsense. Ding was so "lazy" that he prepared multiple openings for white, as he opened e4, d4, c4 and Nf3 in various games.

Hikaru was probably just trolling, creating drama for clicks.

ibrust

In all 3 of these videos Hikaru heavily criticizes Ding for poor opening prep - i.e. spending 30 minutes on early moves that should have been in the WC prep, playing lines as white that aren't testing... etc. And these are just the 3 I watched, I didn't even watch the rest. Your response just dismisses / ignores anything Hikaru had to say in order to affirm your preconceived notions / ignorance. You're not a serious person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_HNIL_hrSU&t=70s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_HNIL_hrSU&t=14m38s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI81otLtElg&t=287s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg3hf9RtzQQ&t=4m10s

Uhohspaghettio1
ibrust wrote:

In all 3 of these videos Hikaru heavily criticizes Ding for poor opening prep - i.e. spending 30 minutes on early moves that should have been in the WC prep, playing lines as white that aren't testing... etc. And these are just the 3 I watched, I didn't even watch the rest. Your response just dismisses / ignores anything Hikaru had to say in order to affirm your preconceived notions / ignorance. You're not a serious person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_HNIL_hrSU&t=70s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_HNIL_hrSU&t=14m38s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI81otLtElg&t=287s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg3hf9RtzQQ&t=4m10s

The first two videos at the times you've marked them are Hikaru talking about his Zuckertort opening and how he didn't think it was good enough for the world championship. The latter two are just him remarking in general about how Ding doesn't appear hugely prepared (though in the first of those latter two he doesn't really even say that).

All that has been mentioned here is that someone contending for the World Championship found it worth it in 2024 to use the London System. Nobody's making any other claims. Hikaru's making his claim of lack of preparedness based on other things, not that he's used the London system. If anything Ding would have to prepare harder with the London if he was seriously going to try to use it to win.

ibrust
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
 

All that has been mentioned here is that someone contending for the World Championship found it worth it in 2024 to use the London System. Nobody's making any other claims. Hikaru's making his claim of lack of preparedness based on other things, not that he's used the London system. If anything Ding would have to prepare harder with the London if he was seriously going to try to use it to win.

Your first claim (which is actually someone elses claim, not yours), if it has any meaning at all, is an appeal to the decision making ability of a WC contender. My argument is criticizing that very same persons level of motivation, i.e. their decision making process, in that very same championship match... while also citing a super-GM doing the same repeatedly... this is directly logically related to your premise, and it also is offering an explanation as to why the player played the move (laziness), but if you can't follow the logic... well, I'm not surprised seeing as the last time we had a debate it was due to you failing to comprehend the very simple, basic fact that a6 is a passive waiting move. Despite exhaustive attempts to explain the obvious you still managed, somehow, to write an entire chapters worth of babble disputing it. Given that experience... I'm guessing this conversation is headed in the same direction, I doubt the explanation I've just provided will have any effect at all, but we'll see.

The obvious benefit of the London is that black can't avoid it, or play many novelties against it, hence it minimizes whites need for prep while sidestepping blacks. Thus it is good specifically for lazy players. If you disagree - try explaining how, or arguing the line is good in some other way, so far no one in this thread has done this... I've seen plenty of disagreement, but very little substantive argument.

Uhohspaghettio1

You remain the only person in history that has ever called the Najdorf a passive opening.

I really can't deal with this now, I have enough crazy people in my life.

ibrust

No, I called the Najdorf passive for black during the opening phase and compared with other sicilians since the move a6 is a passive, defensive waiting move, and no, I am not the first person who has said this, but even if I was it wouldn't matter since it's plainly true and obvious.

Uhohspaghettio1

If you look at database scores for the London System among masters, they are quite competitive, unlike for instance the king's gambit which is no longer playable at the highest level. The queen's gambit is of course better but it's been shown that pulling out a London once in a while has its place among the elites and therefore is a decent main opening for common players.

pcalugaru
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

If you look at database scores for the London System among masters, they are quite competitive, unlike for instance the king's gambit which is no longer playable at the highest level. The queen's gambit is of course better but it's been shown that pulling out a London once in a while has its place among the elites and therefore is a decent main opening for common players.

Rarely can one can have a legit conversation Iburst.

Ignore him when he gets this way. Once in a while every squirrel get's a nut , like the squirrel, sometimes Iburst makes a good point... However most of the time..

he argues semantics while ignoring legit solid points.. 

Falkentyne

White only has three real plans in the London. The e4 break, which just leads to equality if Black doesn't hang a rook on a8 due to a doubleattack on h7, the Ne5 and f4 advance, which can be countered in several ways (which can give Black more winning chances than the other lines), or the ultrasharp variation that Gata Kamsky used to play, I forgot if this involves Ne5 and Bb5 or something with Qb1, but that line was discussed in Georgiev's good London book, and does require very accurate play by Black, who equalizes if he plays correctly. I fainly recall something about White playing g4 in that line.

ibrust
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

If you look at database scores for the London System among masters, they are quite competitive, unlike for instance the king's gambit which is no longer playable at the highest level. The queen's gambit is of course better but it's been shown that pulling out a London once in a while has its place among the elites and therefore is a decent main opening for common players.

No, your conclusion doesn't follow... because the metagame considerations tournament players make do not readily translate to non-tournament settings, especially online and low elo settings. For example... playing a broad repertoire might force your opponent to prepare more lines than they'd wish to prepare. You also have games in tournaments that won't effect the outcome of matches, and often players will play sidelines here to avoid revealing things... the London is an easy line to throw in for some of these benefits... and there is such a thing as strategic laziness. But all of these metagame considerations cease being relevant outside of a tournament setting.

A typical online player is looking to settle on a single repertoire. If they're a serious player... they'll want to choose a good line. Your main argument is inductive, and it's a flawed one.... but I haven't seen anyone yet muster a serious, deductive argument for the merits of the London as a main line in a repertoire. On the other hand... I've pointed out what the main advantage of the London is, along with its many disadvantages, and justified my statements about online play based on that.

Uhohspaghettio1
ibrust wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

If you look at database scores for the London System among masters, they are quite competitive, unlike for instance the king's gambit which is no longer playable at the highest level. The queen's gambit is of course better but it's been shown that pulling out a London once in a while has its place among the elites and therefore is a decent main opening for common players.

No, your conclusion doesn't follow... because the metagame considerations tournament players make do not readily translate to non-tournament settings, especially online and low elo settings. For example... playing a broad repertoire might force your opponent to prepare more lines than they'd wish to prepare. You also have games in tournaments that won't effect the outcome of matches, and often players will play sidelines here to avoid revealing things... the London is an easy line to throw in for some of these benefits... and there is such a thing as strategic laziness. But all of these metagame considerations cease being relevant outside of a tournament setting.

A typical online player is looking to settle on a single repertoire. If they're a serious player... they'll want to choose a good line. Your main argument is inductive, and it's a flawed one.... but I haven't seen anyone yet muster a serious, deductive argument for the merits of the London as a main line in a repertoire. On the other hand... I've pointed out what the main advantage of the London is, along with its many disadvantages, and justified my statements about online play based on that.

Trying to take the advice of pcalugaru but as you're threatening to make some sense here and there might be something interesting I'll bite probably for the last time.

One thing I can appreciate about is adding the online events to databases, I really hate that. Still, I don't see how it ruins them if it's for cash prizes and I don't any real relevancy to the London. If you're suggesting they might use the London more often for their audience for some reason in events with cash prizes I doubt that and also, if they use it more frequently than as a surprise weapon the results of it should go downwards, right? Because titled players on the opposing side get more experience with it. Even though they're playing blitz games with increment, most of the games are still of a higher quality than most people's classic games. Also I'm pretty sure they're not in the lichess database which is what I tend to use, I know they're in chesstempo (not completely certain on this).

So let's think about this carefully. All significant what you call "metagame" scenarios can be boiled down to three things:

1) The frequency masters play the opening combined with the actual results of the opening, as long as there are enough games and they're within the past few decades. Now you look at the lichess database it says 2. Bf4 is played 3% of the time - that's just the accelerated London - after 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 is played 12% of the time. Black can play a different move - but you have Bf4 for each variation except for c5 (clearly white gets put off the London if black doesn't commit his knight to Nf6 on the second move - I think this is due to white often wanting to plant a knight on e5 in the regular London but without Nf6 black can either push it back with f6, or can (more often) take with the Nc6 knight without white's pawn after the take back dxe5 then hitting his Nf6 knight, he should of course develop with Nge7 instead then). But there are so many different ways to play into the London, maybe not the full 12% but maybe 8% of master games? Not sound like a lot? Check how much the Caro is played - 8%. Are you also going to claim the Caro isn't played enough to be taken serious? French only played 12%. d6 (Pirc) only 3% of the time at masters level. While e5/c5 are likely objectively a bit better than the Caro and certainly the Pirc, these are still ways to play and I don't think you would object to someone using the Caro/Pirc as their main defence.

2) The actual results of that opening in the database. In theory if you have enough games all serious openings should have about the same results, or at least converge on the same results over the past few years. They're not all objectively as good but can be used as surprise weapons, so it should tend to balance out. The fact that London is used comparatively quite a bit and with results nearly matching the best should indicate that it's still an excellent opening. No the results don't mean everything, but they definitely add some weight.

3) If there was some reason why players might be using that a particular opening against worse or better rated players, or for a drawing line. This is why many databases have average white/black ratings for the opening - if the Sicilian is used more often against worse opponents of course its results will be better than e5. It doesn't mean the Sicilian is objectively better or gets better performance rating, just that people tended to play it a bit more when they were facing. So let's think - is the London used more often against better or worse players? Better players of course, as the London is often drawish and its main downfall is that it lacks punch. Black has to play accurately but once he does it starts to get very drawish. If black tries to get a little too aggressive and risky, then the London system can destroy him. So the London should really have worse results since people presumably are more likely to use it against higher rated opponents. There's no point or at least it's highly unsatisfactory in being able to neutralize the London System against a lower-rated opponent and have it end up a dead draw and you're now losing rating points.

Man I'm starting to convince myself I should start playing the London System myself for use against better players, thank you for helping me see the light!!

Did you know that Stockfish also likes the London? After 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 stockfish has 3. c4 at +0.2 and 3. Bf4 at +0.1 at depth 48 precalculated in the cloud. But feel free to argue with a 4200 rated computer.

You have to keep in mind that not every average player plays the London either, it's all 1. e4, queen's gambit, 1. e4, queen's gambit, and then once in a while a London, a fraction of games.

At the end of the day the London requires huge technical knowledge to neutralize as black, even the computer refuses to give it 0.0 at the greatest depth, like it does many, many openings considering they end up in draws in theory. And like I say, if your objective is to draw as white, possibly the best drawing weapon. It's also very easy to play as you pointed out, but trying to win with it against a well-prepared player happy to draw can be incredibly difficult.

One final note: if the London was so bad, why do so many people play it? Why do so many experts suggest it? Is it all some conspiracy to keep low-rated players down?

MaetsNori

Some fascinating debates going on here.

For me, I view the London as another tool in the box. I'm not a fan of making it one's *only* tool - which some players seem to do, making it their entire White repertoire.

But I do like to jump into it now and then, when I feel like changing things up and going into something different from what I usually go for.

I especially like going into the London against Modern/KID defensive structures, as I like the dynamism of a stodgy b2+c3+d4 pawn structure against Black's g7 bishop. Black wants to pry that diagonal open to give his bishop power, but that in turn gives White time to pursue improvements in other areas of the board ...

I believe there are concepts that the London can teach a player. It has tactical motifs and structural ideas that can expand a player's knowledge base, just like any other main opening.

This knowledge can be added to the bucket, filling it up a bit more, making a player stronger overall ...

Chess_Player_lol
MaetsNori wrote:

Some fascinating debates going on here.

For me, I view the London as another tool in the box. I'm not a fan of making it one's *only* tool - which some players seem to do, making it their entire White repertoire.

But I do like to jump into it now and then, when I feel like changing things up and going into something different from what I usually go for.

I especially like going into the London against Modern/KID defensive structures, as I like the dynamism of a stodgy b2+c3+d4 pawn structure against Black's g7 bishop. Black wants to pry that diagonal open to give his bishop power, but that in turn gives White time to pursue improvements in other areas of the board ...

I believe there are concepts that the London can teach a player. It has tactical motifs and structural ideas that can expand a player's knowledge base, just like any other main opening.

This knowledge can be added to the bucket, filling it up a bit more, making a player stronger overall ...

this is probably the best take on this forum so far...

Compadre_J

I have played the London System on & off throughout my chess journey.

I want to add a different perspective on the London which I think might not have been mentioned so far on this thread.

I believe the London offers a lot of positional prowess.

Chess is filled with players of all different types, sizes, and styles.

A Tactical player who enjoys attacking and complicated positions may find the London boring or dull.

However, Some players are very Positional.

Positional players enjoy maneuvering, restricting, systematic building and even squeezing their opponents.

The London offers these things because the London positions are often very closed in nature.

Open Positions favor Attacking players.

Closed Positions favor Positional players.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying the London System is the best Positional Opening.

There are other stronger Positional openings which exist in Chess, but a lot of the other “better” Positional openings can be very complex or theoretical.

The London Openings does a trade off.

The London System isn’t considered the best Positional opening, but in exchange for not being the absolute best it is far more simple & less theoretical to play.

If you’re a Positional player, who is seeking to play a Closed position, but don’t feel like trying to have a theoretical position.

You might enjoy playing the London.

ibrust

If the argument is that we should play the London not-so-seriously and not try to settle on just 1 lean repertoire... well, on one hand I can agree flexibility is very important, and it helps to expand your horizons. On the other hand... you still need a main line, especially if you're an online player - people can't prep for you, and you probably don't have time to truly master more than 1 repertoire. So there's some sort of mix here, you probably want to experiment but still have a main line. But if the argument is just "the London is an okay line to throw in occasionally, mainly for learning purposes, although it's not the best line" - well I can agree with that.

As for the giant post - I'm sorry it's just too long. I tried reading it, but I can't spend a half hour typing out detailed replies to everything in that post.

Although one thing I'd add is... there are ways of playing the London without the same old uninspired combinations of moves, like via the Saragossa or a zuckertort w/ an early c3. This allows you to play different lines like the Torre against e6, or alapin vs c5, the white triangle or Colle sometimes, while just selecting specific London lines... i.e. you can avoid the Qb6 lines. You can play the London only against g6 if you like. If I wanted to play the London for education or other reasons this is what I'd do, I wouldn't want to play just the boring ol London. Another idea is to play a very Jobava-focused version of 2. Bf4, with maybe a few select london transpositions or other more risky lines. But that's something I have not fully fleshed out.

Also... I actually like the Trompowsky against g6 as well, and it can do the same thing with c3 as you describe, as can the Torre.

Ethan_Brollier

Against a hypermodern setup such as the Modern or KID, 2. Bf4 and 3. Nc3 introduces the threat of 4. e4! after which White has the option to transpose into Modern/Pirc mainline positions with ideas of 5. Qd2 and 6. Bh6 to trade off the strong DSB and stop Black’s idea of castling short early and h3 to shut down the LSB.

Of course, Black can always play 3… d5, but this position is perfectly even and as a London player, you really don’t mind that all that much, you still have the typical ideas of e3 Bd3 and withholding the KN, Queen, and c-pawn to react to what Black does before committing them.

This would be my recommendation against 1… g6 certainly, and against 1… Nf6 I prefer 2. Nf3 for semantic reasons but I would recommend 2. Bf4 (especially if you are also familiar with the Jobava-Rapport System) for the reasons above.