Thoughts on London System

if someone really wants to know more about the london system then go to the website.com and watch their videos

I bought the book by Marcus Schmuecker today. My impression so far is very good! Crystal clear organization, and a handy format. He proposes the 2.Nf3 3.Bf4 move order, in contrast to the eBook. 

He claims that the black weapon d5 + c5 + Nc6 + Nf6 + Qb6 + c4 + Bf5 isnt a real worry for white after all. He takes the queen on b6, and then argues that black is slightly worse. Interesting. Na3 is the key move

Yeah thanks, really helpful. 

Wow cool I had no idea Lakdawala was so well known.

Can you give any more insight on the line(s) he thinks show improvement for white in the Qxb6, Na3 line?

A quick check on the DB shows black scoring like 71% in this line, and I'm not seeing any recent games that scream brilliancy to me.

I am not sure if I may publish his line like this, but here are a main idea. 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.Na3 and then he argues that the games in data bases were not played with the best lines for white, neither are the published lines so far of too a high quality... He argues that white has good chances. I need more time to say if this seems true, but his writing seems serious. It is refreashing reading in any case. 

The book is "The London System", Marcus Schmuecker, 2009, link via this link http://sverreschesscorner.blogspot.com/2008/01/german-competitor.html

What lines in particular are you worried about? I can see if I can find his improvment in the book 

Sorry, I didn't first see that you refered to the Na3 line, I thought it was generally speaking on the Qb6 + Qb3 system.

He claims than 8...e5 is bad, and that 8...Rxa3 is onsound. Then, 8...Ng4 isn't giving black enough, neither Ra5. He discusses 8...Na7!?, and then 8...e6 9.Nc2!? which is his main line. 

For what it is worth, here is Houdini's (1.5a) best line for both sides in this variation 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7. Qxb6 axb6 8. Na3 e6 9. Nb5 (9. Nc2 Ne4) 9... Ra5 10. a4 Na7 11. Nc7+ Ke7 with +0.14 as evaluation, but I wouldn't spontanously like to play black here. It looks not fantastic to me (for black), but sure, the white a-pawn can get weak in the far future.

Perhaps this happens: 12. Be2 b5 13. Bd1 bxa4 14. Rxa4 Rxa4 15. Bxa4 Nh5 with, yeah, no real advantage for white.

I havn't looked deep enough for sure

Interesting that, when EVERYTHING was on the line at the World Open this past week, Gata went with the London to win, as a draw would mean a loss in the infamous Armageddon playoff format. Could it be his confidence in the power of that "bad system opening", his self-confidence in his own general playing ability, or that he simply knows the thing inside and out and relied on that to provide winning chances? It'd be nice to know his thoughts on that.

Agree. Absolutely interesting. 

On a slightly lower playing level (), it feels like I get more winning chances with London than I got with the main lines. Black playes less exact and then something appears to play om

I have played the London System for years. I have beaten 2200 level players with it. I got a bit tired of it lately and was playing with other things, but it works fairly well against most players. The Qb6 stuff is not too much of a worry to me. The most worry I get is when black plays symmetrical and plants their bishop on e4. For me, it is annoying. 

The cool thing about the London System is that it is realy flexible. Sometimes I don't castle until late in the game and target black's king. Sometimes I capture on e5 with the pawn and push f4. And other times, I have a positional game with a knight planted on e5 that directs the attack. 

You can try different move orders. 2.Bf4 3.Nd2 is interesting. The knight on d2 blocks incoming checks, readies the queen to go to b3 if the black queen goes to b6, and suppotrs the incoming knight on f3, so you don't have to worry about a pin when moving your queen to c1, c2, or b3. 

Kamsky is the London System champion, even though Kasparov has played it once. We should all review his games closely with this system.

Good luck with your choice in the London System. 

I am playing Bf4 very often but i prefer c4 on 4th ot 5th move to get more space.

How can i say this opening ? Is this London ?

Some say London system gives you nothing.

Who does ever won with  a book's "slight edge" and without a blunderfest positional or tactical.

Personally I don't like London system although I use it frm time to time for a change.But the fact that it gives nothing is no drawback for the simple reason that "something" is not enough for anyone of us and I believe that most of us don't even understand it.We just like to play 20 moves we barely understand , reaching  a book position with a slight edge which we don't know what to do.

    Any opening that gives a decent position is fine ,for the OP, or for anyone of you, or for me.

      I really laugh when I see players rated between 1000 and 1500 saying that "this opening gives you nothing" , discussing about the "critical lines of London system" and giving stats from databases.It's like a 2 year old kid watching F1 races trying to decide what car to buy!!!

     There is no critical line at that level.Everything is critical.You may lose in 2 moves from the most awful line or you may win in 2 moves the best line.All you need is an opening that gives you a decent position and allows you to spend minimum time on opening study and most of your time on middle-game and endgame study.

     London is fine.Against the critical lines play the "I use common sense counter attack"   and I assure you , it scores more than fine in all databases.

The strength of the London System lies in the very fact that you Will get nothing, but in doing so you will bore to tears every King's Indian player you meet, who know they can equalize easily, without a thought to it. But of course, KI players Hate being forced to equalize and would much rather be passive sac'g a Ra8 or active sac'g a Bh3, and will eventually be driven insane by seeing too many London Defenses. (Well What, you werent going to call it an Attack, were you?!).

Sign Me, There is no fog in London, except at the airport

London system against KID is like playing Reti against New York system with colors reversed.If New York system is not bad against Reti why London has to be bad against KIA.

Black will get equality but nothing more.No theory and you are on your own.What's wrong with that?A lot use it as a surprise weapon or to avoid home preparation.Even Spassky has used it while Petrosian has used a lot the brother system, Torre attack.

     Are you all so good and you play with so good opponents that if you don't have a slight edge you can't win?

     Have any of you ever won because of a slight edge a book line gave you?

      Is your technique so flawless?

I have tried to play the Neo London several times over the years and never had any luck with it.  The only positive is that I am very comfortable playing against it.  I have a plus record against an opponent that is 100 points above me and plays the Neo London exclusively.  I have beaten him several times as Black and never lost to him.  The general trend seems to be that he gets out of the opening in fine shape, but presses too hard in the middlegame. 

What is the Neo London?I only know one London.

to people who hate the french. seriously, unless you are playing a master, that opening is nothing to fear. most of us aren't playing masters. people below masters level delude themselves into thinking that they are just so awesome with the french, and they think it's such a sophisticated an opening etc., but they have no idea what they are doing really.

I hate playing the french, not playing against it, playing with it. it is passive as hell for the first half of the game, and if you don't make very very accurate moves, you won't get the "counter-punch" attack that people always talk about with the french, you'll just be defending, defending, defending. typically when people play the french against me, I get a killing position from the opening and if I don't win in a blitz game, it's because mouse slipped, get flagged with a couple moves to mate, or a loud sound or something causes momentary distraction (which is all that is needed really to throw away a blitz game, a couple seconds of distraction that then just snowballs) if an online game, I either had some hallucination somewhere when choosing between the 2 or 3 completely devastating attacks present in the postion (trying to get real fancy), or didn't take the time to make some preparatory move allowing a defense to the attack (too many online games at once is ridiculous and counterproductive). point being, in my opinion, the french played by someone below master level, sucks. and you should be happy to see it.

in terms of the london system. it is one of those openings where the pieces don't come into contact immediately and black has to make some prep moves in order to get the theorectical advantage that all the professionals talk about. the pieces not coming into contact and the slow play will torture the hell out of most people, most people like to be aggressive, like there to be action, (especially in blitz) and get really annoyed and frustrated when they have to play something like the london and make a few "slow" positional moves. this can cause many to make errors while cursing you for playing such a stupid opening "that everyone knows isn't good". a phenomenon of professional players talking immense amount of smack about certain openings, the general populace hearing it and assuming if someone plays it against them they can do anything and automatically win, not realizing that the professionals talking that smack are referring to master level play. not johnny and joe playing internet blitz.

I heard or read this somewhere, when white plays opening, maybe a reverse opening, where they give up their tempi advantage or aren't trying for advantage from the opening, then black has to be careful many times and not immediately try to open the position and attack (which is the natural instinct most of time when someone plays a passive slow white opening or some weird reverse opening) but keep the position as closed as possible at first, immediate attacks in those situations often back fire, can give unintentionally give white an attack common to some black opening up a tempo. generally. I'm sure there are cases where an immediate attack is called for.