I wonder if we could all mangage a little more amicability on this thread?  If Anonymous3 wants to talk about chess, I fail to see why we can't do that without snapping at him for trusting his computer too much. 

@Anonymous3: It's often better to ignore a little impoliteness than to post back, "Please don't say anything like that again," particularly to someone who's actually given you some useful advice.

MNb

I gave more comments on 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6. I said it can lead to some very dull positions. I also showed some of what Prie and "Win with the London System" give and say about this line and why I disagree with Prie's assessment and why I think Black has improvements to what "Win with the London System" gives. 

I never said I don't understand why a knight on d6 is much better than a knight on d7, of course a knight on d6 is much better than a knight on d7 in that type of position. I said that I don't understand why Black needs to get a knight to d6. Playing ...Nbd7 is more than sufficient to give Black equality. 

You said that you agree with Prie because he is a GM with expericence in the opening and I am only a patzer. Well, one of the co-authors of the book "Win with the London System" is GM Vlatko Kovacevic and he has experience in the opening. There are some lines in that book where I disagree with the assessment of the position. Some of my assessments have been backed up by Prie in his analysis on the London here on chesspub. This proves that you can't always just go with what a GM with experience in the opening says and dismiss what a patzer says.

MNB, I also provided some useful comments on 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6.

Even if a knight on d6 is a nightmare to anyone wanting to conduct a minority attack in this pawn structure, Black doesn't need to get a knight to d6. Black can just put the b8-knight on d7 and has a very solid and perfectly fine position.

Kylemeister, you make it seem like using computer evaluations is bad. The computers are above grandmaster level so their evaluations should be taken seriously but I know that you can't always trust what they give. I was basically just using the computers to see if they agreed with my assessment of the position and they do. They also showed me that 6...c6 allows White to gain a slight advantage in several ways.    

Kylemeister, please don't make any more comments like this that add nothing to the topic being discussed.

After 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4, 2...Bf5, 3...e6 and 4...Bd6 seems to me to be a very easy and quick equalizer for Black and can lead to some very dull positions. I know that Black has other ways to equalize against the London System but they don't seem to give Black equality as easily and quickly and don't lead to positions that are this dull.  

Prie recommends 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Bd6 5 Bxd6 Qxd6 6 Nf3 Nf6 7 e3 0-0 8 cxd5 exd5 9 Bd3 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 and says "I prefer White because of the superior structure, enabling a minority attack, while it is not easy for Black to get a magic knight to d6". However, I don't think White's very small superior structure is going to give White an advantage here and I don't know why Black needs to get a knight to d6. The position is basically dead even and very dull to me. Fritz 11 and Rybka 3 judge the position basically dead even. 

Win with the London System gives 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Bd6 5 Bxd6 Qxd6 6 e3 and now only mentions 6...c6 but then Fritz 11 and Rybka 3 think White has several ways to gain a slight advantage. However, I think 6...Nf6 or 6...Nc6 should be fine for Black and again the position seems basically dead even and very dull to me. 

Any ideas here on how White can gain an advantage against 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6?