Don't think so actually. They're similar in that respect. But I don't play either. I like to wriggle as black and go for the throat with white, with 1. d4, of course.
lmfaooooo
going for the throat with my signature exchange slav
Don't think the Bongcloud is even a funny joke. I love it in the Slav when black blunders by playing 5. ...Bg4 instead of 5. ...dc.
Don't think so actually. They're similar in that respect. But I don't play either. I like to wriggle as black and go for the throat with white, with 1. d4, of course.
No the KIA is quite flexible and it reaches to dynamic middlegame positions. Sometimes even if a lot of pieces get traded there are still chances in the endgame. No comment on you playing 1.d4...
Don't think so actually. They're similar in that respect. But I don't play either. I like to wriggle as black and go for the throat with white, with 1. d4, of course.
No the KIA is quite flexible and it reaches to dynamic middlegame positions. Sometimes even if a lot of pieces get traded there are still chances in the endgame. No comment on you playing 1.d4...
I play 1. d4 because it gives very dynamic positions. My wins, when I'm playing better, are typically much quicker than they would be in 1. e4 openings.
I wonder why so many people imagine that the London isn't <<quite flexible and it reaches dynamic middlegame positions>>? After all, it's just a pawn structure, like any other where the pawns aren't blocked and so it's dynamically flexible. I've even seen people referring to the Colle as a "tame opening". The Colle is a colours-reversed Semi-Slav and the Semi-Slav is one of black's most aggressively dynamic openings. The "coiled spring effect".
I think a lot of people just think of it as the lazy man's opening, where you really just stick a Bishop on f4 and then try to get some routine setup to make your game go like an automatic machine that grinds up your opponents while the player of the opening really doesn't know why it's any good or what he's doing in general.
Don't think so actually. They're similar in that respect. But I don't play either. I like to wriggle as black and go for the throat with white, with 1. d4, of course.
No the KIA is quite flexible and it reaches to dynamic middlegame positions. Sometimes even if a lot of pieces get traded there are still chances in the endgame. No comment on you playing 1.d4...
I play 1. d4 because it gives very dynamic positions. My wins, when I'm playing better, are typically much quicker than they would be in 1. e4 openings.
I wonder why so many people imagine that the London isn't <<quite flexible and it reaches dynamic middlegame positions>>? After all, it's just a pawn structure, like any other where the pawns aren't blocked and so it's dynamically flexible. I've even seen people referring to the Colle as a "tame opening". The Colle is a colours-reversed Semi-Slav and the Semi-Slav is one of black's most aggressively dynamic openings. The "coiled spring effect".
But with the KIA you are super flexible. Ask a GM I think the answer will be the KIA is more flexible
I don't think he would be right. The reason I think that is that more pawns are comitted in the KIA. I played it a couple of times in Daily 3-day. Also at the club there was someone who never played anything but, so I got a lot of practice plying in different styles against the KIA. Admittedly he wasn't strong ... about 1600 FIDE otb but he had been stronger. He wasn't a weak player. He could sometimes draw against me and sometimes lose. I genuinely believe that the London is inhrently more flexible. You can play c4 and not c3, you can play b3. You can probably turn it into a Stonewall with the bad bishop outside the chain. I'm pretty sure you could go g3 and e4. I don't think the possibilities have really been explored, systematically.
I don't think he would be right. The reason I think that is that more pawns are committed in the KIA. I played it a couple of times in Daily 3-day. Also at the club there was someone who never played anything but, so I got a lot of practice plying in different styles against the KIA. Admittedly he wasn't strong ... about 1600 FIDE otb but he had been stronger. He wasn't a weak player. He could sometimes draw against me and sometimes lose. I genuinely believe that the London is inhrently more flexible. You can play c4 and not c3, you can play b3. You can probably turn it into a Stonewall with the bad bishop outside the chain. I'm pretty sure you could go g3 and e4. I don't think the possibilities have really been explored, systematically.
Jesus was talking about London players when he said:
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."
In other words, Pharisees are players of the white pieces who refrain from creative chess and try and prevent others being creative...
But with the KIA you are super flexible. Ask a GM I think the answer will be the KIA is more flexible
This was really funny. Just played it. I must have been half asleep and it wasn't until he played 5. e4 that I realised I'd played 1. ...f6 and not Nf6 but he'd pressed ahead with Bf4 and I hadn't noticed my f6 move. I thought "how can he play e4 there?" and then I realised. Now, that's inflexible of white but in the hands of a really good player, the London is effective.
A really bad game but I just lost 150 points at blitz in a day and it shows.
I think a lot of people just think of it as the lazy man's opening, where you really just stick a Bishop on f4 and then try to get some routine setup to make your game go like an automatic machine that grinds up your opponents while the player of the opening really doesn't know why it's any good or what he's doing in general.
I knw they do but I'm starting to think it's just the opposite, played properly. If I were 30 years younger I'd be learning all the transpositions and playing it.
So you are a London player and you like to play 1.d4 to show your ambitious intentions " go for the throat" . Something doesn't feel right.
So you are a London player and you like to play 1.d4 to show your ambitious intentions " go for the throat" . Something doesn't feel right.
I have played it once,, all told, I believe. I used to have a very positional style and played the English opening, back when I was winning a lot of prizes in weekend tournaments roughly in the FIDE under 2000 bracket. But I started to find I was losing or only drawing the last game, particularly if I had black. I put that down to playing the English, where my typical wins were 50 or 70 moves. I spent a month booking up on 1. d4 2. c4 lines and then started playing them and immediately, my win rate went up in club and also tournaments. I started playing the Modern Benoni and won the first MB game I ever played against a very aggressive type of FIDE 2000, in a club match. He dropped a pawn and after the game he was most uncharitable and told me that he would have "crushed me" if he hadn't dropped the pawn. I was always contemptuous of him, after that.
I find that the aggressive way I play the d4 openings is extremely effective when I'm playing well.
So you are a London player and you like to play 1.d4 to show your ambitious intentions " go for the throat" . Something doesn't feel right.
I have played it once,, all told, I believe. I used to have a very positional style and played the English opening, back when I was winning a lot of prizes in weekend tournaments roughly in the FIDE under 2000 bracket. But I started to find I was losing or only drawing the last game, particularly if I had black. I put that down to playing the English, where my typical wins were 50 or 70 moves. I spent a month booking up on 1. d4 2. c4 lines and then started playing them and immediately, my win rate went up in club and also tournaments. I started playing the Modern Benoni and won the first MB game I ever played against a very aggressive type of FIDE 2000, in a club match. He dropped a pawn and after the game he was most uncharitable and told me that he would have "crushed me" if he hadn't dropped the pawn. I was always contemptuous of him, after that.
I find that the aggressive way I play the d4 openings is extremely effective when I'm playing well.
That’s what an aspiring English player needs to hear?
So you are a London player and you like to play 1.d4 to show your ambitious intentions " go for the throat" . Something doesn't feel right.
I have played it once,, all told, I believe. I used to have a very positional style and played the English opening, back when I was winning a lot of prizes in weekend tournaments roughly in the FIDE under 2000 bracket. But I started to find I was losing or only drawing the last game, particularly if I had black. I put that down to playing the English, where my typical wins were 50 or 70 moves. I spent a month booking up on 1. d4 2. c4 lines and then started playing them and immediately, my win rate went up in club and also tournaments. I started playing the Modern Benoni and won the first MB game I ever played against a very aggressive type of FIDE 2000, in a club match. He dropped a pawn and after the game he was most uncharitable and told me that he would have "crushed me" if he hadn't dropped the pawn. I was always contemptuous of him, after that.
I find that the aggressive way I play the d4 openings is extremely effective when I'm playing well.
That’s what an aspiring English player needs to hear?
Just get used to long games then.
In all honesty, he probably would have crushed you had he not dropped that pawn.
So why exactly does everyone hate this opening?
I don't hate it. It's just a queen-pawn opening, where white puts his queen bishop on f4. No reason to get upset about it, in my opinion.
White can also develop his queen bishop to g5, b2, or keep it undeveloped until later. All valid approaches, each with different ideas.
At one of my OTB tournaments about 3 years ago (before the pandemic), I had the misfortune of playing an opponent who stuck with the Stonewall in every game as white. What was annoying was that her optimal setup in the opening was the same regardless of what black was doing. I imagine many people have similar grievances about the London, a potentially highly effective system that can work despite the player not having any idea of why they are making the moves or what their sense of strategy should be.
In other words, Pharisees are players of the white pieces who refrain from creative chess and try and prevent others being creative...
The London doesn't prevent black from being creative.
There are many ways for black to play against the London. You can choose a different way every time.
Black can play a Slav structure. Or a King's Indian. Or a double fianchetto. Or a Queen's Indian. Or a Dutch. Or a Benoni structure. Or a Semi-Slav structure. Or a Tarrasch structure. Or a gambit ... Or ...
Bongcloud outshines every opening