Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Controversial London System (Read 107916 times)
Nietzsche
Senior Member
****
Offline


Huggy Bear is coming.
You'd better run.

Posts: 394
Location: USA
Joined: 02/13/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #105 - 06/08/06 at 22:42:56
Post Tools
Ok. I am getting confused.

Thanks to the new 'Winning with the London" (which sounded almost oxymoronic to me), we're discussing several lines based on d4 and Bf4, and whether white can show an edge.  But is anyone suggesting these lines can offer as much as a standard Queens Gambit?  Or as much as, say, the English?   

I'm enjoying this thread and I appreciate all the lines being thrown around, but at the end of it are we trying to show that the London offers White just as much as the more conventional setups?  Or are we simply trying to show that black cannot equalize by force and white should understand the ensuing middlegame positions better?  I've always thought the London made no real claims at a theoretical advantage but offers a freepass to the middlegame and gives practical advantages OTB.   

Basically, I'm peering into my future and I see a copy of "Winning with the London" being mailed to me from Amazon.com. 
I study the lines and find the book well researched and interesting.  Then I ultimately decide that I had a better life in the English and put the book down and go back to studying theory.   

Bottom line: Can the London offer white as much as standard lines , more than the other 'basic systems' or are we playing into thoretical equality but with a "home field advantage"?   

Sincerely,
Nietzsche   

ps - I want to be clear that I'm not trying to disparage the London.  I actually enjoy playing safe, solid, and "boring" openings.  I grew up playing the KIA and I still like Lasker's Defense in the QGD (and neither of these offer much of anything in the critical lines).  {Honestly, I even enjoy playing in Symmetrical English lines.}   Huh

I'm trying to get a feel for the "simple to play" versus "offers an edge" trade-off.  Simple systems tend to make life easier for both players as they don't offer opponents difficult problems to solve but do offer the practioner a way to reach playable middlegames they're comfortable with AND have a social life at the same time.  Which is not such a bad tradeoff, really.   
So, is the London more than the Colle or the Torre?  Or is it more like a Catalan or reversed Grunfeld?  Or is anyone arguing it is as good as mainline Queen's Gambits?  What are these variations being offered as proof for?      

  

"By some ardent enthusiasts Chess has been elevated into a science or an art. It is neither; but its principal characteristic seems to be what human nature mostly delights in - a fight." - Em. Lasker
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Klick
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 528
Joined: 01/31/03
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #104 - 06/08/06 at 07:53:31
Post Tools
Carsten Hansen is giving the London-book 5 stars at  http://www.chesscafe.com ;  Congratulations Tafl.
  

There just isn't enough televised chess - DAVID LETTERMAN
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Simmons(Guest)
Guest


Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #103 - 04/18/06 at 12:34:44
Post Tools
Hello,

Have been looking at 1d4 e6 2. Bf4 c5 3. e3 Qb6 4. Nc3, and in particular trying to understand the differences with similar position with Nf3, Nf6 included. The recent Winning with the London book suggests that white should take draw after 4 ... p xp
5 p xp Q xp 6. Nb5 Bb5+ 7.Ke2 Nc6 with Rb1 etc, since probably losing after 8Nc7+ Kd8 9 NxR Nxd4 10 Qxd4 ... One of the main ideas of the book is that white gets extra chances by delaying Nf3, and playing Bf4 immediately. However in the above case, the above line is only playable for black because Nf3 has not been played. 
        If black is playing to win must avoid 5...Qxp, and can see two approaches
1) 5...Nf6 transposing to a Wells game. Does white have anything better than the unimpressive looking 6a3  of the game.

2)5...a6, with idea that if 5 ...d5 white can play 6BxN RxB 7Bb5+ exploiting no Nf6.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2330
Location: Up on Cripple Creek
Joined: 11/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #102 - 02/28/06 at 01:17:03
Post Tools
I wonder if there's any room for an early Nc3:

1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 c5 3 e3 Nc6 4 Nc3

I ran into this as Black in a correspondence game and made an absolute hash of the opening, but White played passively, and I expect I'll manage to get a draw.  But it caught me off guard, and White did get a strong advantage...
  

"Luck favours the prepared mind."  --Louis Pasteur
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
escac-i-mat(Guest)
Guest


Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #101 - 02/04/06 at 22:32:35
Post Tools
After the moves 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4..., What about 3...Bf5? 

Can white show any advantage?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tafl
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 380
Location: Norway
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #100 - 11/22/05 at 08:02:47
Post Tools
In contrast to your previous suggestions, 8...Nh5 looks distinctly suspicious. So I spent some time looking for an outright refutation. I didn't find a very clearcut one, but after 9.Ne5, Black at least has practical problems. Unless Black plays 9...Nf6, he has the following options:
a) 9...Nxg3?? 10.Bxh7+ Kh8 11.hxg3+-
b) 9...Bxe5? 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Qxh5+ Kg8 12.dxe5 +/-
c) 9...g6 looks weakening. After 10.f4 cxd4 (10...f6?! 11.Bxg6 should come to the same) 11.exd4 f6?! (Black probably should try 11...Qb6 or 11...Qc7) 12.Bxg6 fxe5 13.Qxh5 hxg6 14.Qxg6+ Kh8 15.Qh6+ White seems to have a clear advantage. 

If you find one of these lines playable for Black, I will be happy to look deeper into it.
  

A computer once beat me at chess but it was no match for me at kick boxing - Emo Philips
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 409
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #99 - 11/21/05 at 00:57:57
Post Tools
There is also --


1. d4 d5 
2. Nf3 e6 
3. Bf4 c5 
4. c3 Nc6 
5. e3 Bd6 
6. Bg3 Nf6 
7. Nbd2 

(7. Bd3 O-O 8. Nbd2
Qe7 9. Ne5 {transposes to the line below}) 

7... O-O 
8. Bd3 Nh5  (my new fresh idea)
9. Bh4 

(9. Ng5 Nf6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. Qb1 h6) 

(9. Qc2 f5 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. dxc5 Qxc5 12. b4 Qd6
13. b5 Ne5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15. Nf3 Qf6 16. O-O e5 ) 

9... Nf6 
10. O-O  e5 
11. dxe5 Bxe5 
12. Nxe5 

[[12. h3 h6 13. Nxe5 

(13. c4 Be6 14. Nxe5 Nxe5 15. Be2
dxc4) 

13... Nxe5]]

12... Nxe5 
13. Bc2 

(13. Be2 Ng6 14. Bg3 Bf5) 

13... Bd7 
14.Nb3 Bb5 
15. Re1 b6 

Black is good also and his center space is more solid than in other lines.

« Last Edit: 11/21/05 at 02:32:13 by BladezII »  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tafl
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 380
Location: Norway
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #98 - 11/20/05 at 03:32:45
Post Tools
I suggested 17...b5 because it might change the pawn structure and possibly the nature of the position. 17...Bc6 is one of several natural moves and can be answered with several natural moves (18.Rc1, 18.Qc2, 18.Be5, 18.cxd5 etc.). 

In my opinion the position demands evaluation rather than calculation. This should preferrably be done by a stronger player than me. The factors can easily be identified:
Material: White has the bishop-pair
Pawn structure: Slightly unbalanced. Black has a little more central space, but his pawns are hard to handle because he can easily end up with an isolated e-pawn or immobile c-and d-pawns.
Piece activity: Both sides will soon be fully mobilized. No particularly strong or weak pieces. Black needs to find a good central square for his knight if it is to compete with White's dark-squared bishop.
Conclusion: Weighing these factors up against each others and finding the optimal plan is not easy. To me White seems to have the slightly better chances, but it shouldn't be too hard for Black to keep the balance (or even beat a weaker player).

All in all a fairly normal outcome of a correctly handled opening (or one equally mishandled by both players).
  

A computer once beat me at chess but it was no match for me at kick boxing - Emo Philips
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 409
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #97 - 11/20/05 at 00:30:27
Post Tools
" You instead suggest 15...Nf6, which seems to be untested. The idea isn't entirely clear to me, but I agree that 16.0-0 looks natural (16.c4 b5!?). After 16...Bd7 I suggest 17. c4, when 17...b5!? 18. b3 a6 19.Qc2 looks natural and slightly better for White. That evaluation may of course be debated but I believe this is a position where the bishops are likely to eventually show their strength. " 

after 16...  Bd7  I did take a look and played around with 17.c4.  I did not include it in my post because of --

17.c4  Bc6   

And Black has an easy game, in my opinion.

Shocked

Let me know, please your input
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tafl
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 380
Location: Norway
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #96 - 11/19/05 at 05:15:10
Post Tools
First of all, even if I believe the London system (or at least the moves 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4) to be a valid try for an advantage, I do not claim that White should be able to keep his small advantage deep into the endgame. If you continue an analysis long enough, and both sides play correctly, Black should eventually equalize (as in more recognized openings like the Ruy Lopez or the Queen's Gambit declined).

Then to the analysis:

11...f6 isn't mentioned by Kovacevic but there are 6 games in BigBase2005 with the move, and the score is +2=4-0. The strongest player to have met is seems to be Vlatko's namesake Slobodan Kovacevic:
[Event "Albacete op"]
[Site "Albacete"]
[Date "1992.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Kovacevic, Slobodan"]
[Black "Izeta Txabarri, Felix"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D02"]
[WhiteElo "2395"]
[BlackElo "2445"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. c3 e6 4. Bf4 d5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 Bd6 7. Bg3 Qe7 8. Ne5 Bxe5 9. dxe5 Nd7 10. Nf3 O-O 11. Bd3 f6 12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Ne5 Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Nd7 15. Bg3 e5 16. e4 d4 17. O-O Kh8 18. Qh5 a6 19. a4 b6 20. Rac1 1/2-1/2

This game of course doesn't give all the answers. I must however agree with White's exchange on f6, which seems the best way to make something out of his bishop-pair. And indeed, Fritz seems to like the final position, giving += (0.65). Whether that evaluation is correct or not, I dare not say for sure but I wouldn't mind playing on against an opponent of equal strength. Btw. Fritz prefers the immediate 20.cxd4 cxd4 21.Rac1 with an even clearer advantage.

You instead suggest 15...Nf6, which seems to be untested. The idea isn't entirely clear to me, but I agree that 16.0-0 looks natural (16.c4 b5!?). After 16...Bd7 I suggest 17. c4, when 17...b5!? 18. b3 a6 19.Qc2 looks natural and slightly better for White. That evaluation may of course be debated but I believe this is a position where the bishops are likely to eventually show their strength.
  

A computer once beat me at chess but it was no match for me at kick boxing - Emo Philips
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 409
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #95 - 11/19/05 at 04:00:47
Post Tools


1. d4 d5 
2. Nf3 e6 
3. Bf4 c5 
4. c3 Nc6 
5. e3 Bd6 
6. Bg3  Nf6 
7. Nbd2 

(7. Bd3 this  is the move you might point out but...  O-O 8. Nbd2  Qe7 9. Ne5 {transposes to the line below}) 

7... O-O 

Here you wrote--

"This seems OK for Black, but according to Kovacevic, White should play 8.Bd3, and only after 8...Qe7 should White stop ...e5 with 9.Ne5 (8...Qc7 9.dxc5). "

But...

8. Bd3 Qe7 
9. Ne5 Bxe5 
10.dxe5 Nd7 
11. Nf3 f6 
12. Qc2 

(12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Ne5 Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Nd7 15. Bg3
Nf6 16. O-O Bd7 ) 

12... f5 
13. O-O-O 

(13. O-O a6) 

(13. Bb5 Na5 14. O-O-O   a6 15. Bd3 b5) 

13... c4 
14. Be2 b5

All this was according to your ideas posted above, but in all these lines, I think White is going nowhere and in some lines , he is playing to  avoid being worse.

Let me know what you think;  this is very interesting.

Shocked
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tafl
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 380
Location: Norway
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #94 - 11/17/05 at 01:33:54
Post Tools
Quote:
1.d4 d5   
2.Nf3 e6   
3.Bf4 c5   


As stated earlier, here I find 3...Bd6 harder to meet.

Quote:
4.c3 Nc6   
5.e3 Bd6   
6.Bg3   
 
In general, this is quite a reasonable idea. The bishop withdraws and to enforce a trade, Black will have to open the h-file for White's rook.   
 
6...Nf6   
7.Nbd2   


This position I would normally reach after 2.Bf4 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bg3 Nf6 7.Nbd2. By delaying ...Nf6, Black has made Ne5 less tempting for White, so that he had to meet ...Bd6 with Bg3. This may be a minor achievement. It will sometimes happen anyway if White delays Nf3, so this may be a practical choice for Black, somewhat reducing the lines he need to prepare.

Quote:
[7.Bd3 Qc7 8.Nbd2 e5= Bandara,D-Nasri,A/Tehran IRI 2002.]   


8.dxc5 Bxg3 9.hxg3 e5 10.Bb5 Bg4 11.Qa4 seems more critical.

Quote:
7...0–0   
 
8.Ne5 Bxe5 


This seems OK for Black, but according to Kovacevic, White should play 8.Bd3, and only after 8...Qe7 should White stop ...e5 with 9.Ne5 (8...Qc7 9.dxc5).
  

A computer once beat me at chess but it was no match for me at kick boxing - Emo Philips
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 409
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #93 - 11/16/05 at 23:22:32
Post Tools
1.d4 d5 
2.Nf3 e6 
3.Bf4 c5 
4.c3 Nc6 
5.e3 Bd6 
6.Bg3 

In general, this is quite a reasonable idea. The bishop withdraws and to enforce a trade, Black will have to open the h-file for White's rook. 

6...Nf6 
7.Nbd2 

[7.Bd3 Qc7 8.Nbd2 e5= Bandara,D-Nasri,A/Tehran IRI 2002.] 

7...0–0 

8.Ne5 Bxe5

9.dxe5 Nd7 

10.Nf3


variation A [10.f4 f6 11.exf6 

A1 (11.Nf3 c4 12.e4 

A1.1(12.Nd4 Nc5 13.exf6 Qxf6 14.Be2 Bd7 15.0–0 Ne4=) 

A1 continued--12...dxe4 13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.cxd4 b5 15.a4 Nb6 16.axb5 Qd5 =+ 17.Be2 f5 18.0–0 Bd7 19.Bf2) end of A1

A continued) -  11...Nxf6 12.Be2 Qe8 13.0–0 e5 14.e4 

B-- (14.c4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Be6 16.Bd6 Rf7 17.Bxc5 Rd8 18.Qc2 b6 19.Bd4 Nxd4 20.exd4 dxc4 21.Bxc4 Bxc4 22.Nxc4 Rxd4) end of B

A continued)  14...exf4 15.Bxf4 dxe4 16.Qb3+ Kh8 17.Bd6 Rf7 18.Bxc5 Be6 19.Qc2 b6 20.Be3 Rd8 21.Rae1 h6 22.Nxe4 Bd5 23.Bd3 Ng4 24.Rxf7 Qxf7 25.Nf2

C--(25.b3 Nge5 26.Rd1 Nxd3 27.Rxd3 Rf8 28.Ng3 Be4) end of C.

A continued ) 25...Nge5 26.Be4 Bxa2 27.Rd1 Bd5]  end of A.

10...f6 
11.exf6 Nxf6 
12.Bd3 Qe7 
13.Ne5

 
Variation X -- [13.c4 Nb4 14.0–0 

X1 (14.Bb1 Rd8 15.cxd5 exd5 16.a3 

X1.1 (16.0–0 Kh8 17.a3 Nc6 18.b4 

X1.1a (18.Qd3 Bg4 19.Rc1 a5 20.a4 d4 21.Ra3 Rac8 22.e4)

X1.1 continued) 18...d4 19.e4 d3 20.b5 Nd4 21.Bxd3 Bg4 22.Rc1 Nh5) end of X1.1

X1 continued ) 16...Nc6 17.0–0 Bg4 18.h3 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Ne4 20.Rd1 Nxg3 21.Qxg3 Qf6 22.Ba2 c4 23.Rxd5 Rxd5 24.Bxc4 Qf7 25.Kh2 Kf8  )  end of X1

Variation X continued)  14...Nxd3 15.Qxd3 b6 16.Rad1 Bb7]  End of Variation X.

13...Nxe5 
14.Bxe5 Nd7 
15.Bg3 e5 
16.Qh5 g6 
17.Qh6 c4 
18.Be2 b5 
19.h4 a5 
20.0–0–0 Bb7
21.Qg5 Rae8

Black looks  good.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tafl
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 380
Location: Norway
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #92 - 11/16/05 at 02:12:21
Post Tools
In case you are looking at the natural variation 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.Ne5 Qc7, 8.Bb5 probably is best. Here are some fairly recent games:

[Event "Izmir GP op"]
[Site "Izmir"]
[Date "2002.08.28"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Vasilev,Milen"]
[Black "Demirel,Tolga"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "D02"]
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nd2 e6 6.Ngf3 Bd6 7.Ne5 Qc7 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.Nxd7 Nxd7 10.Bxd6 Qxd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.f4 a6 13.Bd3 c4 14.Bc2 f5 15.Nf3 b5 16.a3 Ra7 17.Qe1 a5 18.Qh4 Qe7 19.Qh3 Nf6 20.Kh1 Rb7 21.Ng5 g6 22.Qh4 Rfb8 23.h3 b4 24.axb4 axb4 25.Ra6 Rb6 26.Rxb6 Rxb6 27.Ra1 Kg7 28.Ra8 bxc3 29.bxc3 h6 30.Ba4 Nd8 31.Nf3 Nf7 32.Kh2 Qb7 33.Ra5 Ra6 34.Rb5 Qd7 35.Ne5 Nxe5 36.dxe5 Ng8 37.Ra5 Qa7 38.Rxa6 Qxa6 39.Bd7 Qb6 40.Qg3 Kf7 41.h4 Qd8 42.Bxe6+ Kxe6 43.Qxg6+ Kd7 44.Qxf5+ Kc6 45.Qe6+ Kb5 46.g3 Ne7 47.f5 h5 48.f6 Nc6 49.f7 Ne7 1-0

[Event "Ceske Budejovice op"]
[Site "Ceske Budejovice"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pribyl,Josef"]
[Black "Jacek,Martin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "D02"]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.Ne5 Qc7 8.Bb5 0-0 9.Ndf3 Ne4 10.0-0 Bd7 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Qe2 c4 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 a6 16.Bxc6 Qxc6 17.f3 f5 18.Rfe1 Rf6 19.Re2 a5 20.Qe1 Raf8 21.Qg3 b5 22.a3 Qb6 23.Qe5 b4 24.axb4 axb4 25.cxb4 Qxb4 26.Ra7 Qb8 27.Re7 Qb6 28.h3 Rc8 29.g4 fxg4 30.hxg4 Rg6 31.Kg2 Kf8 32.Rd7 Qb5 33.Qf4+ Rf6 34.Qd6+ Kg8 35.Qe7 Rg6 36.Kg3 c3 37.Rh2 h6 38.Rxh6 Qb8+ 39.f4  1-0

[Event "Papp Bela mem"]
[Site "Budapest"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Sleisz,Tamas"]
[Black "Izsak,Gyula"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "D02"]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 c5 4.c3 Nf6 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.Ne5 Qc7 8.Bb5 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 Ba6 11.Re1 Rab8 12.b3 Rfc8 13.Rc1 Rb7 14.Ndf3 Ne4 15.Nd2 f6 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Nc4 Bxf4 18.exf4 Bxc4 19.bxc4 Qxf4 20.g3 Qf5 21.Qc2 cxd4 22.cxd4 Rcb8 23.Qxe4 Qxe4 24.Rxe4 Rb1 25.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 26.Kg2 Kf7 27.Re2 Rd1 28.Rb2 Rxd4 29.Rb7+ Kg6 30.Rxa7 Rxc4 31.Rc7 e5 32.a4 Rxa4 33.Rxc6 Ra2 34.Rc7 e4 35.Re7 f5 36.h4 Kf6 37.Re8 g6 38.Kf1 h6 39.Rh8 Kg7 40.Re8 Ra7 41.Ke2 Ra4 42.Re7+ Kf6 43.Rh7 Ra1 44.Rh8 Kg7 45.Re8 Rg1 46.Re7+ Kf6 47.Re8 Rb1 48.Rf8+ Kg7 49.Re8 Rb7 50.Ke3 Kf6 51.Rf8+ Rf7 52.Ra8 Re7 53.Ra6+ Re6 54.Ra8 g5 55.hxg5+ hxg5 56.Rb8 Ra6 57.Rb7 Ra3+ 58.Ke2 Kg6 59.Rb5 Rf3 60.Rb8 Kh5 61.Re8 Kg4 62.Rh8 e3 63.fxe3 Rxg3 64.Rh2 Rh3 65.Rg2+ Kh5 66.Kf2 g4 67.Ke2 Kg5 68.Kf2 Rf3+ 69.Ke2 Kh4 70.Rh2+ Kg3 71.Rh5 Kg2 72.Rg5 g3 73.Rh5 Rf2+ 74.Ke1 Kg1 75.Rg5 g2 76.Rh5 f4 77.exf4 Rxf4 78.Ke2 Re4+ 79.Kd3 Re6 80.Kd2 Kf2 81.Rf5+ Kg3 82.Rg5+ Kh3 83.Kd3 Re1 84.Kd2 g1=Q 0-1

[Event "IECG"]
[Site "IECG email"]
[Date "1999.12.04"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Delbecque,Christian"]
[Black "Kovacs,Arthur"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "D02"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.Ne5 Qc7 8.Bb5 0-0 9.Ndf3 Nh5 10.Bg3 Nxg3 11.hxg3 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qxe5 14.Bd3 h6 15.Qc2 f5 16.0-0-0 a6 17.Qe2 Qf6 18.Bc2 b5 19.Kb1 Bb7 20.g4 fxg4 21.Qxg4 e5 22.f3 e4 23.fxe4 dxe4 24.Bxe4 Bxe4+ 25.Qxe4 Qf5 26.Qc2 Qxc2+ 27.Kxc2 Rae8 28.Rhe1 Re5 29.Rd7 Rf2+ 30.Rd2 Rxd2+ 31.Kxd2 Kf7 32.Ke2 h5 33.Rd1 Ke7 34.g3 g6 1/2

[Event "Carl Schlechter mem"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Date "1996.10.10"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Stoeckl,Ernst"]
[Black "Dueckstein,Andreas"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "D02"]
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.c3 e6 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.Ne5 Qc7 8.Bb5 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 Rb8 11.b3 Ba6 12.Re1 Ne4 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Bg3 f6 15.Nc4 Bxc4 16.Bxd6 Qxd6 17.bxc4 f5 18.Qc2 cxd4 19.cxd4 c5 20.Red1 Rb4 21.a3 Rb6 22.dxc5 Qxc5 23.Rd7 Qe5 24.Rb1 f4 25.exf4 Qxf4 26.Rxb6 axb6 27.Rd4 Qf6 28.Qd2 Ra8 29.Rxe4 Rxa3 30.h3 h6 31.Kh2 Ra5 32.Qe3 e5 1/2

[Event "SWE-chT 0102"]
[Site "Sweden"]
[Date "2001.10.12"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Riis,Jens"]
[Black "Eklund,Lars Goran"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "D02"]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 c5 5.c3 Bd6 6.Ne5 Qc7 7.Nd2 Nc6 8.Bb5 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 Rb8 11.Rb1 Ne8 12.Qa4 f6 13.Nd3 c4 14.Bxd6 Nxd6 15.Nc5 e5 16.b3 exd4 17.exd4 Nb5 18.Rbc1 cxb3 19.axb3 Qf4 20.Nb1 Re8 21.Qa2 Bf5 22.Na3 Nxa3 23.Qxa3 Re2 24.Rce1 Rbe8 25.Rxe2 Rxe2 26.Qxa7 h5 27.Qa8+ Kh7 28.Qxc6 Be4 29.Qe8 Bf3 30.Qd7 Qg5 31.Qh3 Bg4 32.Qd3+ g6 33.h3 Rd2 34.f4 Rxd3 35.fxg5 Bf5 36.Nxd3  1-0

  

A computer once beat me at chess but it was no match for me at kick boxing - Emo Philips
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tafl
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 380
Location: Norway
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Controversial London System
Reply #91 - 11/16/05 at 01:29:49
Post Tools
Quote:
I have looked at the line with 5.Ne5 and I have checked the ideas of ...Nc6  ...Bd6 ....Qc7 ... Ne4  and it fails to show how white can stop Black from equalizing. 
 


Again I must admit that I have some trouble understanding your exact message. 

- Does "it fails to show" refer to the new London System book?

- After 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Ne5, ...Bd6 has already been played. Are you referring to a line where it has been delayed?

- Black may be able to play ...Ne4 in some lines, but with a knight on d2 and a bishop on d3 it will mostly lose a pawn, so it is more often an option if Black plays a set-up with ...b6, ...Bb7 and ...Nbd7. 

- 5...Nc6 of course is playable, but looks a bit peculiar, blocking the c-pawn. Shouldn't the natural moves 5...c5 and 6.c3 be inserted first?
  

A computer once beat me at chess but it was no match for me at kick boxing - Emo Philips
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo