In the Stonewall, there are certain setups from black where if white continues playing the Stonewall he is just considerably worse, if not positionally losing right out of the opening.
That can be said of virtually any opening. That is, if you play poorly, and don't adapt to what your opponent is doing, you'll probably lose.
The Stonewall Attack...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/stonewall-attack
London is a great starting opening for players learning. It gives them confidence. I always reccomend it to newer players who join our club, and Nelson Lopez video 35 principles. It seems to help and thats what its all about is it not?
This is the video I usually get them watch when they are at the London stage. (in my very limited experience). I highly rate this fellow myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXyJdetptXg
It's funny, every single time I play against London players, I recieve a worse position out of the opening.
And yet, curiously enough, I normally win those games.
It's funny, every single time I play against London players, I recieve a worse position out of the opening.
And yet, curiously enough, I normally win those games.
When I have the advantage in the opening, I lose. When I'm at a disadvantage in the opening, I win.
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...
This is a typical 1.d4 game albeit against low-rated opposition. But a lot of my games are a bit like this if the opponent allows it. 5/5, just played. I could give hundreds of similar examples.
Very similar one, just played. Not a London but relevant to comments here.
Because it is f.... boring and calls for a draw without art
Here's me using the London to outplay a FIDE Master, in blitz:
I don't play the London all the time - I mainly use it against certain black setups. But when I do play it, I find it both solid and flexible.
The "boring, drawish" reputation is undeserved, in my opinion. A boring, drawish game depends entirely on both players.
Many people who have no imagination think that in certain openings, they're condemned to a dull game.
The London is boring to face. Queen's Gambit gives you a lot of possibilities while the London is the same 6 or 7 moves every time. Also because it isn't a straight up refutation like the Englund or Latvian Gambit meaning you have to grind your teeth to break the London apart.
Also, I hate the Botez sisters because they are boring to watch and every time I even give them a chance, there is almost always a London being played not to mention how Eric Rosen, Aman Hambleton, Ginger GM, and Gotham all promote it.
Because it is f.... boring and calls for a draw without art
Here's me using the London to outplay a FIDE Master, in blitz:
I don't play the London all the time - I mainly use it against certain black setups. But when I do play it, I find it both solid and flexible.
The "boring, drawish" reputation is undeserved, in my opinion. A boring, drawish game depends entirely on both players.
bros bragging about beating a FM when he went f6 nh6 nf7 lmfao
I lost against a London again, maybe yesterday. When it's played well, by a strong player, it can be quite a handful. I would say that the only people complaining about it are weak players, who can't even take advantage when it's played badly.
no I dont think thats why they are complaining
There's no other reason to complain.
Because it is f.... boring and calls for a draw without art
Here's me using the London to outplay a FIDE Master, in blitz:
I don't play the London all the time - I mainly use it against certain black setups. But when I do play it, I find it both solid and flexible.
The "boring, drawish" reputation is undeserved, in my opinion. A boring, drawish game depends entirely on both players.
bros bragging about beating a FM when he went f6 nh6 nf7 lmfao
Not the most principled approach by black, I agree.
But ... to be fair, that's (apparently) his system repertoire. Or at least part of it. He plays it quite regularly.
bg7+f6+nh6 is his thing.
Because it is f.... boring and calls for a draw without art
Here's me using the London to outplay a FIDE Master, in blitz:
I don't play the London all the time - I mainly use it against certain black setups. But when I do play it, I find it both solid and flexible.
The "boring, drawish" reputation is undeserved, in my opinion. A boring, drawish game depends entirely on both players.
What a blunderfest! The chess.com computer says you made 7 and the opponent 6, though you made 2 great moves vs only 1 for your opponent. It was exciting though.
This proves mainly one thing: openings don't win chess games.
Because it is f.... boring and calls for a draw without art
Here's me using the London to outplay a FIDE Master, in blitz:
I don't play the London all the time - I mainly use it against certain black setups. But when I do play it, I find it both solid and flexible.
The "boring, drawish" reputation is undeserved, in my opinion. A boring, drawish game depends entirely on both players.
bros bragging about beating a FM when he went f6 nh6 nf7 lmfao
it is actually not so bad. When I was 1700, I played it against a 1990 in a 90+30 game, and came out of the opening slightly better. I later blundered several pawns (because I was 1700) but made a draw. The opening is actually fine for black.
Because it is f.... boring and calls for a draw without art
Here's me using the London to outplay a FIDE Master, in blitz:
I don't play the London all the time - I mainly use it against certain black setups. But when I do play it, I find it both solid and flexible.
The "boring, drawish" reputation is undeserved, in my opinion. A boring, drawish game depends entirely on both players.
bros bragging about beating a FM when he went f6 nh6 nf7 lmfao
Not the most principled approach by black, I agree.
But ... to be fair, that's (apparently) his system repertoire. Or at least part of it. He plays it quite regularly.
bg7+f6+nh6 is his thing.
GM Duncan suttles enjoyed playing those positions. He played a very nice game against Bent Larson with that system (although he did lose).
GM Duncan suttles enjoyed playing those positions. He played a very nice game against Bent Larson with that system (although he did lose).
I believe it. It looks awkward, but it does have it's own kind of logic.
Every now and then you'll run into players who like to play it every game, with both colors.
I found one where Firouzja played a version of it against Giri.
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 ...