The problems with the london system and caro kann + why they are so hated.

Let the chess Masters say it with such authority. In any case, they do not agree at all with each other about London System.

This is absolutely personal. What is boring to you may not be boring at all to another, and vice versa. Play the openings you like, and let others play what they like.

In the 1970s and 80s, the London was a black defence to white's king's fianchetto openings, considered solid and rather dull but it blunted the fianchettoed bishop. I'm not sure what it was called in Mason's time. I have a first edition of his chess manual somewhere, I think, unless I sold it. If Mason played it, it was probably a "Queen's pawn Game". I was only aware of the name "London" for black's defensive setup. Mason was a decent player and so I doubt he played it "to lose".

Personally, I think that, played by white, the London is a very good transpositional system which is completely solid. Should be impossible to lose with and white can set positional traps for black.

I play the Caro-Kann as a second string to the Sicilian. Or at least, I attempt to play it. I think that black must be willing to castle 0-0-0 in the Caro, making it quite a risky affair, far from the idea of solidity that seems to be portrayed by some. If black isn't willing to 0-0-0, then f2-f4-f5-f6 is thematic and seems to be strong.

There are some openings you should play for better improvement, and there are some that stunt it. Maybe you should read what i said.

Most people play chess for the attack and all the ideas and strategies there are. Most people also call the london and caro kann ¨boring openings¨ because people at their level play them like cowards. Yes its true that they can lead to more fun games and be more fun, but most of the london and caro kann playerbase dont play it for that.

Its true that its hard to lose in the london system, but its also quite hard to win if black just plays solidly and correctly. Sure thats the case for most openings, but its definitely much easier to win as white in a open najodorf, closed french, or a gambit opening than in the london system.

Hello, yes, I agree but I also think the London is best suited to beginners and to masters who don't want to lose and who can make use of their transpositional understanding. After all, white can't force black into a Najdorf. I used to have a colleague at our chess club who played the Najdorf. I played the a6 Sicilian with the intention of transposing to favourable e6 Paulsen lines. He used to get some really horrible positions, like with two sets of doubled pawns. Often the last to finish. I would usually have won or drawn half an hour earlier. My games were usually much clearer and I could often get a slight advantage out of the opening.

This is all Carlsen's fault. If he hadn't played the London System, it would still be an unknown Queen's Pawn Game.

The idea, of course, is not to play it as a system opening but as a transpositional opening. However, Bf4 immedtately fails to place pressure on black's centre, whereas Bg5 attacks the centre indirectly. The Queen's Gambit has to be stronger but very often in the QG I reposition the B on the g3 f4 file. It sometimes emerges again on the c1 h6 file and aids in a k-side attack. I do think that Bf4 in the London is tame. Unless you can play Ne5, maybe you shouldn't play it. Much of the time, white would like to take advantage of black's reticence in playing Bd6 because black wants to win. I think that an early Bd6 by black is a good idea AND THEN outplay your opponent.

Back in the day, I remember an article comparing the Catalan with the Caro-Kann, believe it or not, mainly because they were both relatively unknown. The advice then was that a near beginner can try the Catalan but you need to be an advanced player to play the Caro Kann.

Or was it the other way round?

I think most people play to win. That's the purpose, no matter what strategy you use to do it.

If a defensive player beats a pure attacker, the former is stronger than the latter, and that's all that matters.

Some see a game of chess as a sword duel or a fighting, others as a construction of thought in which the best player is the one who builds better. For the latter, the concept of bravery/cowardice in chess ( which is so dear to the former ) has no meaning. And the fun for them is not to make "fire and flames on the chessboard" but to build a game well, and doing better than the opponent.

As you can see, it's subjective. Let everyone have fun in any way they like.

Yes. All i want to point out is that often both the london and caro player play it for the same reasons: They dont have to worry about losing (unless they blunder), and their games are often devoid of any advanced tactics or times where one side is attacking another; Thus the player never learns how to defend, attack, or look for sacrifices or tactics.

I actually agree. In order to beat the london player i often have to adopt positonal play where i go for more and more until whites game is completely unplayable. White will have nothing to punish, and white will little options for good enough counterplay.

"The London on the other hand is more a ramshackle kind of trailer park sort of a system"

Played by almost every great player of the 21st century

I'm old. We used to call the Giuco Piano stodgy (no one was risking the d2-d4 lines) and tried to avoid it with the 2 Knights - great fun in all lines! The Berlin was regarded as inferior, though I gave it a whirl to transpose into the Old Steinitz (e4 v d6 centre but after f2-f4 the e4 pawn made a nice target...). Fashions c.hange, but opponents have the right to try anything within the rules. Karpov apparently was very angry when after 1 e4 Tony Miles responded 1... a6. When you coach youngsters it@s always fun to let them count the possible moves. I think 1 f3 actually reduces them!

As a 1150 - 1300 ish rapid player, I like playing London system. Because it's not a heavy or challenging opening and I my job will be just don't blunder to win. I lose if I blunder and my opponent founds it, and I win if finally my opponent falls in a position and I see it. And I draw if we both play without blundering and without making too sharp positions. So, why should I try sharp openings? I used to play sicilian, but I just stopped it and preffered KID because I mostly used to lose as black with sicilian due to its sharp positions and my brain would finally error in a random part of the game.

I love playing against the caro and London you just need to know how to play against it then it's ez to win against since they play it like a system they panic and mess up half the time

What do you mean caro and London is easy to play against just be solid your opponent will eventually break down systems are hard to play(and hard to play against)

Almost everybody here loses between 40-50% of their games, so why care about the opening. Just play what you like and what suits your playing style. You will always get similar rared oponents and then it's a 50:50 game no mather what you play.

Carlson, Nakamura, Caruana, Gukesh, So, Aronian, Kamsky have all started their games 1.d4.d5 2.Bf4

Carlsen, Giri, Gukesh, So, MVL, Aronian, Grishuk have all started 1.d4.Nf6, Bf4

I enjoy the London as part of a larger repertoire. I especially like to alternate between it and the Nimzo-Larsen - as they both are quite different in how the queen bishop is deployed.

Having such opposites (in terms of bishop development) has given me a lot of middle-game variations to learn from.

In my opinion, the London is an excellent opening to learn ideas from (as long as it's not the only opening a player relies on). All openings, actually, have something to teach you - and the London is no exception.

The Caro-Kann is quite a different beast (and not really comparable, in my view) - as it can go through many different changes, depending on how White attacks it. A C-K player needs to know many different structures, and the important ideas behind each of them, as White can alter the game in several different ways.

This makes the Caro-Kann far different from the London. In the London, you try different ideas from the same general structure. In the Caro-Kann, you prepare yourself for several different possible structures, each with their own ideas ...

A good way to play against the London System is to simply bait White to trade off his f4 bishop by playing ...Bd6. If he trades it off, Black improves the position of his Queen and threatens to play ...e5 immediately after ...Nc6 is played, or Black can delay it with ...b6 (to allow ..bxc5 if White trade pawns on c5), and he is immediately equal. Example: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Bf4 c5 4 c3 (note: after 4 e3, some ...Qb6 lines become very attractive). c5 5 e3 Bd6 6 Bxd6?! Qxd6 (Stockfish 16.1 already says this is +0.00 so Black has succeeded in the opening). And to stop a future...e5, White will have to play Be2, Nbd2 and c4, which is a waste of a tempo, so it's clear he's gotten nothing.

More challenging is 6 Bg3 or 6 Nbd2 or even 6 Bb5+. After 6 Nbd2, ...Bxf4 may not be best, as White gets more control over e5, and the b pawn can be protected by Rb1. So...6 ...0-0 7 Ne5 (consistent) Qc7 8 Bd3. 8 Ndf3?! is careless as this allows 8...Ne4, followed by ...f6, and Black already is for choice, and note: then 9 Bd3 is very bad because of 9...f6! or 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 (forced, 10 exd4 loses a piece!) 10 ...f6, and Black wins a pawn for free.

So 8 Bd3 a5 (gaining space and threatening to eventually take the Queenside with ...c4 followed by ...b5 if he is allowed to, after ....Nbd7) 9 0-0 (what else? 9 Bg5 Nbd7 (a draw can result from 9... cxd4 10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 Qh5 f5 12 Qg5+ with perpetual check) 10 f4 b5 11 0-0 b4 12 c4 Ba6 with equality and another possible perpetual after 13 Qf3 h6 14 Nxd7 Nxd7 15 Bxh6, so let's go back to 9 0-0):

9 0-0 Nbd7 attacking e5, forcing White's reply 10 Ndf3 (10 Nxd7?! Bxd7 11 Bxd6 Qxd6 is not what White wanted) c4 (tempo) 11 Bc2 b5 12 a3 Ne4 with equality, (note: black is already threatening 13...Nb6! followed by 14 ...f6).

So White already has nothing after 4 c3, so let's examine 4 e3.

Now 4 ...Qb6 is a bit premature because of 5 Na3, so Black can play 4...d5, with a very nice Queen's Gambit type structure, where White can't get any advantage with 5 c4?! cxd4 (often a key capture in these pawn structures) 6 exd4 Bb4+ 7 Nc3 0-0 8 Bd3 dxc4 9 Bxc4 Nd5 10 Bd2 Nxc3 11 bxc3 Qc7! (notice that White has not castled, so Bxc3 with the K on e1 would allow a check on d2). 12 Qe2 b5! 13 Bxb5 Bxc3 with equality.

If White plays 12 Bd3 instead, then 12 ...Bxc3, 13 Rc1 Bxd2+ 14 Qxd2 Nc6 is bad for White, and 13 Bxh7+ Kxh7 14 Ng5??+ completely fails to 14 Kg8 15 Qh5 Bxd2+ followed by ...Qh5-f5 and White can resign. Better is 14 Qc2+ Kg8 15 Bxc3 Nd7 16 0-0 (16 Ng5 Nf6 =/+) Nf6 17 Rac1 Qf4 with equality.

So instead of 5 c4?! let's examine 5 Nbd2.

If 5 c3, then 5 ...Bd6 goes right back into the line we already looked at earlier.

So 5 Nbd2, Black can play 5....Nc6 6 c3 Nh5!?, ...Be7, ...cxd4 followed by ...Nh5, etc) or the interesting 5...Qb6!?, and 6 b3?! (6 Rb1 is best, then 6...Bd6 7 dxc5 Qxc5 8 Bd3 b6 9 0-0 Nbd7 10 b4!? Qc7 11 Bxd6 Qxd6 12 c4 0-0, and Black has good equalizing chances) after 5...Qb6 is a typical novice player's mistake, and Black can play either 6...cxd4!? 7 exd4 Ba3 7 c3!? 0-0 8 Rb1 Bd6, and White's Queenside is weakened. The pawn grab 7 Bb2 8 Rb1 Bxc3 9 Rc1 Bxd2 gives up the bishop pair, so White ends up with full compensation for the pawn. Or instead of 6...cxd4!?, 6...Nc6, where 6 b3 did not help White whatsoever, then 7 c3 Nh5 8 Bg3 (8 Be5 cxd4 9 cxd4 f6 10 Bg3 Nxg3 with advantage, or 9 exd4 f6 10 Bg3 e5 with the initiative) Nxg3 9 hxg3 Be7 or ...Bd7) and White has work to do to equalize, as after 10 Bd3 Bd7/Be7, the h7 pawn cannot be taken as the bishop gets trapped, and Black delays castling until White also castles.

As you can see, Black is doing fine in all of these lines.