Forums

My first anti-Accelerated London

Sort:
Ritterschildt

I was immediately taken out of theory when he played 2. Bf4

Looking up the opening afterwards it said: Accelerated London System. I remember Gotham talking about the effective London, and how hard it is to beat.

But I managed to equalize and turn the tables.

AtaChess68

Why did you give your knight for a pawn on move seven (7. …Nxf2)?

Ritterschildt
AtaChess68 wrote:

Why did you give your knight for a pawn on move seven (7. …Nxf2)?

I will be honest, and admit that I didn't see any good moves. I decided to destroy his castling ability. Also, knowing that 1.d4 players like closed games, I gave him the opposite - an open game.

AtaChess68
That is not a good reason, I am afraid :-)
Ritterschildt
AtaChess68 wrote:
That is not a good reason, I am afraid :-)

OK. How about my winning result 0-1 to me. Is that a good reason enough?

AtaChess68
Ah, I see most of the game is missing in your first post. I found the game and I can imagine you enjoyed playing. Nice!
AtaChess68
Yes, winning is good enough. But not if you want to learn opening principles and opening theory. That is not about the final outcome, imho.
HappyEraser_1

nice

magipi
Ritterschildt wrote:
AtaChess68 wrote:

Why did you give your knight for a pawn on move seven (7. …Nxf2)?

I will be honest, and admit that I didn't see any good moves. I decided to destroy his castling ability. Also, knowing that 1.d4 players like closed games, I gave him the opposite - an open game.

If you played Nxf2 as a sacrifice, thinking it's good, that's a very bad sign. You have absolutely no compensation for the piece. You have no pieces to attack the king, who is actually pretty safe.

When you played Qf6 instead of taking the bishop, that's an equally big blunder and it's even more difficult to understand.

Don't give away pieces This is much more important than all the opening theory combined.

TempleKnight

I think the OP capitalizes on the exposed King Really well. His Knightsac looks crazy at first glance, but he builds up the rest of his game on it.

Nowadays every beginner plays the Bf4 calling himself "a London player". I think you punished him greatly for not knowing his theory. Look at his London Bishop in this position.

Ritterschildt

I immediately liked the Shankland anti-London when I saw it. Giving an excellent starting out for us 1...Nf6 responders.

Sixstring12

The boring London system is the jack of all trades in beginner chess. It allows the player to simply park his Queen's Bishop on f4, and then relax - hoping that Black won't open up the game.

The London player wants to keep things closed, and he just hates attacking swindlers - because they usually beat him.

Congrats on your first win as Black against the London.

Jenium
Sixstring12 wrote:

hoping that Black won't open up the game.

The London player wants to keep things closed, and he just hates attacking swindlers - because they usually beat him.

Pretty sure "opening" the position with Nxf2 was not the reason White lost.

NL-Xena

nice

Ritterschildt
Sixstring12 wrote:

The boring London system is the jack of all trades in beginner chess. It allows the player to simply park his Queen's Bishop on f4, and then relax - hoping that Black won't open up the game.

The London player wants to keep things closed, and he just hates attacking swindlers - because they usually beat him.

Congrats on your first win as Black against the London.

Exactly. I always like to open up 1.d4 games, and make them aggressive and tactical. With sound inspiration from Shankland, I will be better prepared next time the London comes. But I won, and that's a great feeling.

CarlsenMagnus_Fan

Wow