Holding back on Nf3 allows White to use the tempo instead on the queenside if Black rushes to attack b2 right out of the gate in ...c5 ...Qb6 lines.
My first attempt at the London System - FAIL
Sort:
Fischer,a grandmaster,played e4 in most of his games.He is an aggressive player but also a very positional one too.
So Chesed 1973,e4,d4,or c4? If you choose e4,you are an aggressive-positional player(More on attack and strategy) but if you choose d4,you are a positional-Aggressive player(Less on attack and strategy but more on positional concepts).If English Opening,it depends on what variation will you choose,and d4 but Queen's Gambit leads to e4-like play.
chesed1973 wrote:
robertjames_perez wrote:
Play e4 because it means you are an agressive attacker. and d4 means less attacking play,more on positional,while c4,The English Opening,is depending on what variation will you choose.
I am an e4 player and have an attacking style. I am trying to improve my positional play and thus, the switch to d4. I need to work more on thinking for myself instead of just playing in my comfort zone (Ruy Lopez) all the time.
Just ask a question if you still did not believe.
Watch Fischer's e4 games to see how much good Fischer in positionality.
Dec 30, 2016
0
#48
You dont have to play 1.d4 to improve your positional play. Watch some Fischer games in the Ruy Lopez or even better. Get Karpov's books.
Dec 30, 2016
0
#49
I have positional battles all the time.... I haven't played 1.d4 in years.
The point is not that one can't end up playing a positional game as White with 1.e4. It is that in the King pawn openings there are generally many more defenses which allow Black to take White out of any positional game he had in mind, than is the case for openings beginning 1.d4.
By playing 1.d4 White has a higher probability of being able to play a positional, manuevering style game than by playing 1.e4.
e4?Many defenses? But I can't go playing boring openings! I like aggression,and I am aggressive.
Not all defenses in e4 are good.
RussBell wrote:
By playing 1.d4 White has a higher probability of being able to play a positional, manuevering style game than by playing 1.e4.
I don't think probability comes into it. At least not in the way you imagine.
If either player really wants wild tactics they can create them no matter what their opponent tries.
Sicilian is not my top choice because of the killer Morra and its very complicated. Caro-kann,boring for black! French,Black is flexible but white can attack black's kingside easily! King's pawn game is my bet,because it is the most flexible. When he plays closed openings,I will have an attack easily! But I like open(center is god for bishops and rooks.),Semi-open(one -half or one-quarter of the board is good for bishops and rooks.),or one-opened(bishops are good while rooks aren't),which are good for aggressors.
But in a less important game,I sometimes play Sicilian.
I never meant to imply that e4 never led to positional games. The reason I am studying London is to work on a certain aspect of my game. I am not arguing for its superiority or anything.
Morphysrevenges wrote:
GM Simon Williams has a few good instructional vids on Youtube about the London.
He advocates playing Bf4 before playing the knight to f3. In fact, he tries to delay playing Nf3 until black has played e6 so black can no longer pin the knight with Bg4.
He also talks about postponing castling on the king side, so as to either not castle or castle queen side leaving your (H)arry-pawn to advance against black's king.
Yes, I saw that. Great video.
Dec 31, 2016
0
#59
You do know the London is all about supposedly mating Black on the kingside right?
Really, just get Karpov's games collection or something like that if you want to study positional chess. Cause you can play the Ruy Lopez for example, but without explanations your positional chess is likely to stay almost the same.
ModestAndPolite wrote:
RussBell wrote:
By playing 1.d4 White has a higher probability of being able to play a positional, manuevering style game than by playing 1.e4.
I don't think probability comes into it. At least not in the way you imagine.
If either player really wants wild tactics they can create them no matter what their opponent tries.
Probability does come into it in the way I imagine.
For example, you "can" win the lottery every day. There is no law of the universe that prevents this from being a possibility. But the "probability", or if you prefer, the likelihood, based on experiential evidence, is that you won't.....
I have taken an interest in the London System lately. I am usually an e4 player but I want to play something different for a change. Any help or suggestions with the London System or on this game in particular would be greatly appreciated. My opponent played very well. I added my own analysis. Feel free to add anything that I missed.
I agree with your annalyse. 3.Ne5 or 4.Ne5 were good moves. Also Nd2 just developing was better then Bh2 and Qa4 in combination with Ne5 was not to the piont. Black can just castel and take on e5 later. Nice 3D bord by the way. I think blacks Bg4 was not such a good move becuase of Ne5. If black wants to play Bg4 he can try the Chingorin opening. With first Nc6 and then Bg4. But here without c4 of white Bg4 is I think out of the question.