Torre attack vs London system
Sort:
As a 600 rated player, when should I choose the Torre over the London. The Torre seems pretty aggressive and, to me, doesn’t seem to have as much potential as the London as it’s just an attack on the knight and has the potential to damage the pawn structure. The London in comparison is more passive but allows for greater development without having to move too much.
Neither are just playing a structure and pattern. If you want to play them well you need to know what to do against what your oponent is doing. If you have the London then you have a choice of Jobava and regular London. You also have a choice of Trompovsky or Torre. They all have slightly different ideas. Finally in the QG you can still get your dsb out if you play different move orders. Have fun with them.
May 17, 2025
0
#3
Torre is best against e6. There's nothing in the Torre that says you must trade the bishop for the knight. If they chase it away... that compromises the kingside pawn structure.
If you're playing c3 as a waiting move... here's a way you might enter the Torre -
It's just okay against g6, and against the d5 without e6 (Gossip variation) Torre is quite bad. Against g6 I'd either play the London, or one of the unique lines available. I also think a London is good against an early c6.
You don't always have to play a London from this setup-
This c3 waiting move line can be reached from the Saragossa, btw. If you're gonna play these lines... check out the Saragossa, it's how I would reach them. I did research into this and put my findings in a blog a while back - Saragossa opening overview - Chess.com