is London the best chess opening?

My most recent foray with the London got me a nice playable middle game where I had trouble finding a plan. In the ensuing play, I made a poor decision at the point where I had an advantage and my game fell apart.

Pretty much, yeah.

Grandmasters might have other motives than "reaching a comfortable position"... but for players like us, this maxim will do.

Definitely one of the best..

Is it really, though?

I particularly like going into a London against a Modern/KID setup, via 1.Nf3 and an early c3

I haven't really found much reason to stop ... (though I'd be happy to be shown why I should, if there is a concrete reason).

Of course, if Black doesn't play an early Nf6 to contest the e4 square, then I'll switch away from the London idea and plant the e-pawn on e4 instead (like you did in your example game).

Then I'll play with a c3+d4+e4 center, and leave the c1 bishop on its homesquare for later in the game, in more of a Closed Ruy Lopez manner (Nf3+Bd3+0-0+Nbd2+Re1+Nf1+Ng3 and so on ... unless tactics dictate otherwise).

My point, I suppose, is that I believe the London is fine against certain Bg7 setups, as long as White is comfortable to transpose into something else, if needed.

wrong. there is no technical objection that other may have a better view of what you mean than yourself. actually it is often the case. the acception someone knows what he is saying is generally false and biased by ego. we are all piece of self ignorance;

Is not the best opening "Ruy Lopéz Opening: Berlin Defense, Rio Gambit Accepted"?

I don't know. I've read that the KID is the most testing idea against the London. I think I remember reading that in Lakdawala's book. Following Eric Rosen's advice in his speedrun, I tend to favor a reversed queen's gambit when I'm Black against the London.

You asked whether you misunderstood. I'm telling you that you did. Read more closely instead of interpreting is my point.

.
If you want to start a philosophical discussion on the death of the author, start another thread (but not in "general chess discussion"). There, we can discuss Jacques Derrida, if you like.

.
I taught college English and history for thirty years and have taught chess for twenty-five. I'm usually in decent control of what I intend to say and have the ability to say it. When folks find something else in my words, it usually reflects a reading deficiency.

.

If you want to correct my understanding of what I wrote, try to at least use appropriate spelling and grammar.

I have Lakdawala's book as well, though I've only skimmed it. I'll have to look for that comment to see what I can learn from it.

I also play a QG structure against Modern/KID setups sometimes. Though, if I'm not careful, I get move-ordered into a Benoni/Benko type structure (where White has advanced the pawn to d5) where White is objectively fine, but Black is getting the exact kind of structure that he loves and has studied far more than I have ... and his g7 bishop becomes a monster.

This is probably why I default to c3+d4 structures more often ...

(EDIT: seeing your comment again, I see now that you mentioned a reversed QG against the London. Completely different conversation. My mistake.)

What openings a chess software plays depends upon the opening library installed.

I've had success playing a formation similar to the KID Panno against the London.

The move Nc6 (instead of Nd7) is often supported by tactics against the f4-Bishop, such as White's answer d4-d5 being met by the riposte e7-e5 hitting the f4-Bishop, while a subsequent Bg5 can be parried by N(c6)-e7.

No problem, its all interesting.

I played the Benko a lot twenty-five years ago and recently have been employing it again. In my last OTB game, I failed to get an advantage against a lower rated opponent until he tried to hang on to the extra pawn in a drawish heavy piece ending. That cost him a rook and the game.

.

It seems to me that you are replying to me, but it is another user ( wester7 ) who wrote the comment you are replying to. Maybe you too have made the mistake of reading too quickly, not seeing that the person who wrote to you is not who you thought he was.

I willingly accept your suggestion to restrain myself. I would just add that with my post #17 I never had the intention of correcting you in any way, or giving interpretations to what you said: I just wanted to understand better. My apologies if it seemed otherwise, and for my inadequate knowledge of your language.

You are correct. Originally, I was replying to you and then that other guy jumped it with nonsense and I did not pay attention that he was not the original poster whom I scolded.

In the post where you wrote, “Perhaps what @Ziryab means is precisely this”, I might suggest that instead, you could have written, “What I hear Ziryab saying”. That way you have offered your reading without suggesting that I was unaware of what I wanted to say.

The rest of what you wrote there was insightful and did not deserve my harsh response.

Not only attacking play, if by this you mean attacking the king, but certainly that is central to the most important tactical operations.

Many many years ago, and many times since, I read the discussion about the Ruy Lopez (Spanish) in Chess Openings: Theory and Practice by I. A. Horowitz. He does a good job of explaining each move. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, he explains that the bishop attacks the knight that defends the pawn that the knight on f3 is attacking (I’m paraphrasing from memory as the book is downstairs).

This is the sort of tactical thinking that I had in mind as what a beginner (or anyone rated under 1200) needs to learn.

Much more recently I read Yuri Averbakh, Chess Tactics for Advanced Players. He argues that all tactics involve some form of double threat and explicates the process in Reti’s famous study to show how a defensive threat combines with an offensive one to resolve a seemingly impossible predicament.

White to move and draw.

Yay

Nah bro i could do the sa,e

Agreed. The Spanish is far more instructive than the London, for learning players. It's very direct in showing cause and effect, attack and defense ...

The same could be said of the Queen's Gambit - though I'd say the QG is a touch more advanced than the Ruy, when it comes to understanding the ideas, as the players are often fighting over control of certain squares, rather than directly attacking or defending pawns/pieces.

To me, the London is more about learning how to establish, preserve, and play around with a specific structure ... White has his system in mind and he spends much of his time figuring out how to maintain his original ideas. One could argue that this doesn't help a newer player learn to adjust and adapt in a flexible way ... There's still learning happening, but it's contained in only one specific direction.

IMO the London is best when it's combined with a repertoire that contains other White openings. So instead of playing the Accelerated London, I'd recommend White go with something like 1.d4 and 2.Nf3, for example. Then White can transpose into things like the QG, Colle, London, Torre ... depending on what defensive posture Black adopts. More flexibility, more learning.

I think the London is a much better choice for a player who has spent considerable time learning first the Queen’s Gambit, and then openings like the Torre Attack and Colle. The ability to transpose to what the position demands is critical.