What do you think about the London System?

what do you think about it?

its for beginners although it can be a good opening. I use it, and at sometime, Kasparov used it and he won. Thats what I think.

Oh, you are opening up a can of worms.  Good luck.

its a great system to play if your looking to put your opponent off guard

No problem.  That's Eo's favorite kind of can.  

Jeremy Silman recommends this as a good opening for white  to avoid mainlines!

It's ugly and unsightly.

 Barf: It's a line to learn to avoid learning how to play chess. You start out with a great opening move (d4) and then follow with this dull evasion.

GM Aagaard called it "the old man's bad habit" and gives this line: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4 Bd6 and claims that Black has already equlaized. I found this to be good advice.

Don't play gimmicky sidelines if you want to learn about chess in general. If you just want to play blitz against people who don't know anything, then it's fine.

It sucks.

Well, you did ask.

I prefer the London Underground system myself

It s pretty solid for white,avoids tactical skirmishes.I ve been using it lately with decent results.But the London does lack some firepower.

It is basically a Slav with white having the extra move.

There are quite a few interesting sidelines that can arise such as the Morris Gambit, Kamsky plays it regularly and he is no slouch.

Decent opening for white, better than the CZ I think.

THe London just fails since you should at least TRY to get an advantage out of the opening. 1.d4 without 2 or 3.c4 is just boring and gives no advantage.

Hate this opening with a passion.

I don't use it much...

 Just given a very good reason for playing it there, why should white entertain his opponent, play into his pet lines, if he wants to bore somebody to defeat then so be it, The London does that very well.

Incidentally the London gives you an advantage in every line,as white you are one move ahead, up to you how you use it.

Think I will play it tomorrow night, give the English a night off.

Leningrad, Budapest, New York

Someone's got to say it: if it were so good, why is the London not a mainstay of GM play? It's like the Blackmar-Diemer, Colle, Smith-Morra or other pet lines that have fan clubs at lower levels. It simply does not offer better players what they need to keep the initiative moving forward.

A top GM here or there may occasionally pull anything out of his hat, but that doesn't make it worthwhile.

Those going through their chess puberty are always attracted to lame openings and questionable gambits, most outgrow this as they become more experienced/serious .

Judging by everyone's statements: "It's ugly and unsightly", its an "old man's habit", "I hate it", "boring", "lame opening", it sounds like a something to study. GM Kovacevic in his book "Win with the London System" states that if you study it carefully and play it your ELO can increase 200-300 points. IM lakdawala has stated (in personal discussions) that even IM's don't know exactly what to do against it. Think how it would work against amateurs. (He has a new book "Play the London System".) It works well against young good players who are tatically oriented. By the way, the opening is more complex than it looks at first glance.

 If you play me it will definetely erupt, say : 1 d4/d5 2Bf4/c5 3e4 !? that what you had in mind or say 1d4/e6 2Bf4/c5 3e3/Qb6 Nc3 !

But then hey an expert on the London like you knows all this stuff.