I think it's one of those Good when I'm doing it , Bad when I'm facing it openings
Why exactly does the London get so much hate?
Sort:
Jul 10, 2023
0
#263
Until some time ago, I "hated" London System because almost everyone at my level plays it after 1.d4 and I wanted to try something else. But then I stopped giving importance to openings, because I saw that they are not the most important aspect ( always at my level ).
Currently, the only reason I still "hate" the London System is because I often lose against it. I still haven't figured out how to manage that type of game ( and probably for this reason it seems to me boring too ). From this point of view, I think playing against the LS is instructive, as far as I'm concerned.
That said, for the LS as for all other things, everyone can play the way they want... I don't think "real chess" exists ( what would it be ? who decided it ? where is it written? ). A chess player, if he's good, must know how to win against any opening or system or style, no excuses.
Hoffmann713 wrote:
Until some time ago, I "hated" London System because almost everyone at my level plays it after 1.d4 and I wanted to try something else. But then I stopped giving importance to openings, because I saw that they are not the most important aspect ( always at my level ).
Currently. the only reason I still "hate" the London System is because I often lose against it. I still haven't figured out how to manage that type of game ( and probably for this reason it seems to me boring too ). From this point of view, I think playing against the LS is instructive, as far as I'm concerned.
That said, for the LS as for all other things, everyone can play the way they want... I don't think "real chess" exists ( what would it be ? who decided it ? where is it written? ). A chess player, if he's good, must know how to win against any opening or system or style, no excuses.
Here’s a quick little setup against the London System:
The top G explains it better than I ever could.
ding liren