ajedrecito, I don't think the position after 8. Qc1 leads to an advantage for Black -- it might seem like he has a lot of space, but White is the one with the breaks. Kamsky has gone into this line many times with fine results.
Thoughts on London System
Sort:
Thanks to both of you. Yes, this line is discussed in the eBook, and the suggested move order is 1.d5 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.c3!? and now if 3...c5 then we take the pawn and keep it. Do you see any drawbacks with this moveorder? I guess it is impossible now to meet KID with any more normal system (e.g., Fianchetto).
The book by Johnsen - Win With the London System - is the one I see touted the most by London players. Might want to check that out. It's a little older than PTL, but I can't imagine theory evolves all that fast in this opening.
You also might want to reconsider your choice of switching to the London, if your reasons for doing so are, "I got tired of e4," or, "I get nothing with e4."
The London is perfectly respectable. But you're almost certain to "get nothing" with it. You're also almost certain to see really similar positions over, and over, and over. That's kind of the point. You voluntarily accept "getting nothing," but you get a playable sort of "nothing," where you're very likely to be headed into an equal middlegame where you know the plans, the piece placements, and the tactics that are likely to spring up.
If you've got to choose between getting nothing the same way every time, or getting nothing with a lot of variety, just be sure you choose with your eyes open.
All that said, I think the London is an excellent choice, as long as you don't mind its drawbacks.
eatingcake wrote:
ajedrecito, I don't think the position after 8. Qc1 leads to an advantage for Black -- it might seem like he has a lot of space, but White is the one with the breaks. Kamsky has gone into this line many times with fine results.
Since the OP said he has a book already anyway, I can't imagine this line is an issue, since I don't think any book has advocated an early Nf3 in lines against 1...d5, 2...Nf6 since the 1900's.
I think against lines with this setup (definitely among the most critical in the London)...
...a white setup involving 1.d4 2.Bf4 3.e3 4.c3 5.Nd2 and 6.Qb3 is typically prescribed to pure Londoners.
So if black forces ...c4, the Queen gets c2 without the threat of Bf5. Or if black wants Bf5, white takes with dxc5, and the game goes down independent lines that score well enough for white.
Who wrote the "eBook at Everyman chess, "Play the London","?
Cyrus Lakdawala. He's also recently done "Ferocious Opening Repertoire," which focuses on the Veresov. Not the strongest player out there writing books, but a good author for clubbers, IMO.
Jul 5, 2011
0
#8
WhatCheck wrote:
You also might want to reconsider your choice of switching to the London, if your reasons for doing so are, "I got tired of e4," or, "I get nothing with e4."
The London is perfectly respectable. But you're almost certain to "get nothing" with it. You're also almost certain to see really similar positions over, and over, and over. That's kind of the point. You voluntarily accept "getting nothing," but you get a playable sort of "nothing," where you're very likely to be headed into an equal middlegame where you know the plans, the piece placements, and the tactics that are likely to spring up.
If you've got to choose between getting nothing the same way every time, or getting nothing with a lot of variety, just be sure you choose with your eyes open.
All that said, I think the London is an excellent choice, as long as you don't mind its drawbacks.
Well stated.
Thanks folks, good advice. I currently accept "nothing" using London, since then I can focus in middlegame and endgame studies in a higher degree. Playing the big openings requires more checking of theoretical lines.
Thanks WhatCheck, I wasn't aware there was an e-version of his book.
Just to give an example; I tried to play aggressively versus Caro-Kann. First I gave the Panov Attack a go, for quite a while. I knew the basic ideas, trying to push that isolated pawn at the right moment, "releasing the power" of my more active pieces ... But it only rarely worked for me. Exchanges, and dull position, often with that damn d-pawn still on d4.
Then I tried the Advance variation. Pushing all sorts of pawns in front of my king; fun games, wild, but it is really difficult cracking the black set-up. The wrong move order, and black is better. Studies, studies, studies.
Not to mention the French. LOTS of work for white, even to get a reasonable playable position. My positional handbooks where collecting more and more dust, and I constantly seeked sharp opening lines ...
mnag wrote:
Thanks WhatCheck, I wasn't aware there was an e-version of his book.
I make no promises one way or the other about the e-availability of any book, ever. Just acknowledging the book itself.
I think if you want "simple," combined with "positional," and "slightly more interesting than a box of cornflakes," you might look into the combination of...
1) The Colle-Zukertort against most of your d4-d5 stuff, and...
2) The Torre against most everything else.
Those contain fairly rich and interesting positional ideas, fairly straight-forward strategies, and will probably keep you from falling into a coma.
:) Thanks! I will remember that. Personally, I think meeting Scandinavian, Caro-Kann and Alekhine is pretty much exactly as fun as that corn-flakes package you are refering to.
ajedrecito wrote:
Firstly, Kamsky has NOT gone into that line many times and indeed he avoids it.
Secondly, White has no breaks. That's the point and the reason why it is so depressing.
Lines with Nd2 are met by an earlier Bf5. Although this is just equal, not better for Black.
I don't advocate any system openings since they necessarily don't work against everything, but play what you like. I've seen the book by Lakdawala (interestingly I have 100% winning record against him on ICC, due to sheer luck) and it seems pretty decent. I have a good friend around 1950 who plays the London, but he doesn't like it too much.
Agree with the Nd2 lines being equal. But then, the OP seems to be going into this with his eyes open regarding the easy equality issue. Besides, if you absolutely demand more than equality out of your white opening, chess can be very frustrating. (But truly, it's not often as easy for black to achieve as it is w/the London.)
As far as Kamsky playing that line goes -- at least on chesslab, it's easy to verify that he did go into that exact line at least 8 times against mostly Super-GM level competition since 2007. (And I don't think chesslab is the biggest DB out there.)
But I'm not sure I'd agree with eatingcake that it treated him all that well. 2-3-3 over that span. It is what it is.
why not play the sicilian? its very good for me try the yugoslav attack
wu345 wrote:
why not play the sicilian? its very good for me try the yugoslav attack
You don't get to choose whether to play the Sicilian as white. And you certainly don't get to choose whether to play the Dragon.
And at any rate, he already gave his answer to why he didn't care for facing the Sicilian (among other white openings).
On the plus side, this has inspired me to play a London game. :)
ok try queens gambit if d4 d5
Hi, I have started to experiment with the London, 1.d4 d5 2. Bf4 etc. I bought the new eBook at Everyman chess, "Play the London", which is rather nice in many ways. I have played 1.e4 in recent times but I got somewhat tired getting nothing against the Sicilian (tried everything), I hated the French, I got very little against the solid Scandinavian or Caro-Kann. I got more play against 1...e5 and the rest, but it is hard for me to grasp that 1.e4 is "best by test". People are booked-up, really. Earlier, I have played the English (didn't quite like the symmetric lines 1...c5), and 1.d4 (got bored with e.g., QGD). So here I am, now playing "rubbish", although the same "rubbish" that Gata Kamsky played many times.
What about the other books on the London? There is a book written by Marcus Schmuecker; any good? The only thing I don't like with my eBook is that it is difficult to get a quick overview of the move orders. Otherwise, the book is good.
Those of you who will claim that the London doesn't offer anything for white: I am sure you are right from some theoretical perspective. Interesting that Aagaard wasn't able to prove any advantage in "Experts vs Sicilian", so I believe it is not that easy to get a theoretical edge with anything really.
On the web, I seem to win slightly more games with London than what I was able to with 1.e4. Probably because few have anything prepared.