London:
1. Simple play and development.
2. Very solid position, will take about a thousand errors to lose
3. Chances to attack on the kingside (Carlsen vs. Tomashevsky).
What's wrong with the opening?
I'm not a supporter of it. As I've said before, I don't play it myself. However I don't see how it's horrible...
Meanwhile, ThrillerFan's example in #118 is, of course correct. But if we take the "Standard London System" against 1...d5, white has a small but steady edge.
wow some people really dislike the London System ;o
Depends on your definition of dislike. After 1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Bf4 d6 4.e3, I'll take Black and be more excited than a contestant on the Price is Right winning a new car!
On the flip side, you couldn't pay me enough money to take White in that position!
What has been established?
People have an opinion on the London System.
Statistically, the London may be more drawish and have a smaller win rate for white than an opening as versatile as the French or the Najdorf, but there is very little theory (just ideas). The London is a perfect choice for those who do not have time to study.
wow some people really dislike the London System ;o
Depends on your definition of dislike. After 1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Bf4 d6 4.e3, I'll take Black and be more excited than a contestant on the Price is Right winning a new car!
On the flip side, you couldn't pay me enough money to take White in that position!
Yes, but we're talking about 1.d4 d5 here.
Going to write down the names of all anti-London people in this thread and should I run into one of them I'll play the London for an easy psychological edge.
Statistically, the London may be more drawish and have a smaller win rate for white than an opening as versatile as the French or the Najdorf, but there is very little theory (just ideas). The London is a perfect choice for those who do not have time to study.
If you don't have time to study, shouldn't you be taking up something simpler, like Tic-Tac-Toe?
It's just like playing an instrument. Is it really worth your time taking up playing the Clarinet if all you can do with it is play Row Row Row Your Boat?
The opening serves one purpose, to get to a playable middlegame.
L. Portisch.
How you get there is up to you.
Me
Statistically, the London may be more drawish and have a smaller win rate for white than an opening as versatile as the French or the Najdorf, but there is very little theory (just ideas). The London is a perfect choice for those who do not have time to study.
If you don't have time to study, shouldn't you be taking up something simpler, like Tic-Tac-Toe?
It's just like playing an instrument. Is it really worth your time taking up playing the Clarinet if all you can do with it is play Row Row Row Your Boat?
What?????
So if you love something, but don't have time to study it because of your job or other responsibilities, you shouldn't do the thing???
Well THAT's interesting.
No, it's that they don't want to study 30 moves of theory in hundreds of variations just to be OK. This is a much simpler alternative.
Instead, they become stronger players because they spend all of their time not on the opening, but on the other, more important stages of the game.
Besides, people playing systems doesn't necessarily mean they play them all the time. I have a teammate about 1750 FIDE who has been playing the last three seasons in a 1900-2100 pool, and he has scored a ton of draws and some wins with the Colle as his main weapon as white (actually he was 1650 when he started playing those people).
Nothing to understand. The OP created this so he could vent. Nothing more, nothing less. It shouldnt make a bit of difference to anyone what anyone thinks of the London System. I play it for the exact reason it is a sytem. It requires minimal study, memorization.
"Everyone was drawing knifes while arguing over the London opening. And thus started WWIII"