Thx for nothing Magnus- Now I gotta play the dutch to avoid London system

If you join in V3, you can choose your level. "Beginner", "Intermediate", "Expert"... something like that. And the highest one gives you a starting point at 1800.

Black's Bf5 is not supposed to make it to that square.  Once it does, Black has equalized, and equality at move two for Black in a world title match is a win for that player in the match. 

It's amusing that players who see the London as a way of avoiding booked-up players allow their opponenrts to predict the first oh FIFTEEN moves they're going to play.

I grew up with a friend who knew only the Dutch Stonewall, and it was the only opening I faced for about ten years.  Same crap every game.  After a while you just know what to target as Black, and you'll get your share, while your opponent will NOT evolve into a better player.

How many times must one play a song to be able to perform it live, on request? 

I'm generally invincible in the main lines for the first 12-15 moves.  Players love to try "trick chess" openings against me so I see every garbage line in the book, and one by one I add the refutations to my repertoire, each one sending my rating up a few points as I convert losses into draws into wins against the same level of competition.  I'm also older so I've had six distinct opening repertoires.

What I have noticed is that today's "booked up" players still know less opening theory than I knew in 1991, when I didn't have computers.  They've used computers to simulate what I built with over 150 books, including all five volumes of ECO, and tons of practice.  Now I have the same tools they do, and anyone who thinks a simplistic, equalizing-at-move-two syst em for Wjite is going to work, well, it will, just not against a properly prepared opponent.

Kotov vs. Petrosian, Gagra 1952
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.e3 0-0 5.Nbd2 c5 6.c3 cxd4 7.exd4 Nc6 8.h3 d6 9.Nc4 b5 10.Ne3 b4 11.d5 bxc3 12.dxc6 cxb2 13.Rb1 Ne4 14.Bd3 Qa5+ 15.Kf1 Ba6 16.Nc4 Bxc4 17.Bxc4 Nc3 18.Qd2 Qa4 19.Bd3 Nxb1 20.Bxb1 Rfc8 21.g3 Rxc6 22.Kg2 Rac8 23.Bh6 Rc1 24.Bxg7 Rxh1 25.Kxh1 Rc1+ 26.Kg2 Rxb1 27.Qh6 Qd1 28.g4 Qh1+ 29.Kg3 Rg1+ 0–1

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf3 3.Bf4

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4

The London system has three eco numbers D02,A46,A48

It is doughtfull you know this opening

You shouldn't pretend to an expert and you should learn how to spell doubtful ( wrong: doughtful).

Jeff, you are an idiot! I spell it correctly. Maybe you are blind and stupid!

Nice try.  You edited it after I posted.      I could do the same thing.  lol

I laugh at player like you who pretend to know how to play chess, you wish you knew how to play the London system; you play defensive because you don't understand how to play chess.{ Stephenson2 wrote:( It is doughtful you know this opening.")} He wrote this because I said the best way to meet the London system was KID or Benoni, he doubted I knew the London System. Your extremely low tactical trainer rating { 1400} tells me you are a weak player.

 I don't put much stock in Tactics Trainer.  I might not always find the "best" tactical move, but I usually find one that's good enough to win.   Tactics are not my strong-suit though.  I'm a positional, defensive, counter-attacking player.   That style of play works well with my personality.   Your high tactics rating and lower playing ratings tells me that you are a weak positional player.  

Yureesystem has a poor command of the language, which does sometimes detract from the point he's trying to make. But he does know something about the game.

I understand the desire to correct errors, whether they are grammatical or analytical. But there's no need to make it personal.

He started it.  All I did was correct his spelling.   He chose to make it personal, by calling me names and insulting my chess abilities.