which one is better?

Sort:
Avatar of Wainlist
what's better - London or queen's gambit?
Avatar of tygxc

Queen's Gambit

Avatar of GeovanGabriel

London is boring and therefore worse

Avatar of ssctk

Queen's Gambit offers a richer set of positions to play and makes a bolder claim for an advantage ( whether you get that advantage or not is a different discussion). The queen's gambit requires more study time though. Perhaps start with the London but every now and then give the Queen's Gambit a try, to start getting a feel for the positions that come up.

Avatar of Schmorrell
London is more of a system and so it’s a little easier to apply in a variety of positions.
Avatar of Yerachmeal

Queens Gambit is better if you want a low IQ game, and London is better if you want a confusing one.

Avatar of Sadlone

Both are losers openings people who can't calculate and are too lazy to study plays the queens gambit and London system, the sharp, calculating genius boys plays the kings gambit , the grob g4 and the Italian, the scotch gambit etc , ruylopez also sometimes 

Avatar of RevolvingPotato

Don't play London

Avatar of Ethan_Brollier
Wainlist wrote:
what's better - London or queen's gambit?

The London is better... for Black. Queen's Gambit is better for White.

Avatar of Yerachmeal
Yerachmeal wrote:

Queens Gambit is better if you want a low IQ game, and London is better if you want a confusing one.

I should specify that by London I'm talking about London accelerated.

Avatar of loganmills1714
Queens gambit imo
Avatar of swarminglocusts
I hate the London from both sides. You have a lot of traps for either opening. Either one can get you in trouble.
Avatar of Ethan_Brollier
swarminglocusts wrote:
I hate the London from both sides. You have a lot of traps for either opening. Either one can get you in trouble.

I don't mind the London System, but you really have to know when to use the Accelerated, Traditional, Jobava, and all the ideas they contain. It really isn't as simple as a lot of people think that it is.

Avatar of zone_chess
Yerachmeal wrote:
Yerachmeal wrote:

Queens Gambit is better if you want a low IQ game, and London is better if you want a confusing one.

I should specify that by London I'm talking about London accelerated.


If you think the QGD is low IQ you haven't understood a thing about the opening.
Once you see how your initial moves determine the endgame, you will come to respect its royal sophistication. It's one of the most popular Super-GM openings for a reason - its devious logics are hidden behind layers and layers of pseudo-logic that the less experienced players operate by.

Therefore I highly recommend the QGD, in particular the Orthodox and Capablanca-Duras Variations. But the Alekhine and Cambridge Springs Defense are nice lines too.

Avatar of StockCat821
Wainlist wrote:
what's better - London or queen's gambit?

Kinda hard to choose tbh. London is boring asf, and the Queen's gambit ain't even a real gambit. idk