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.}
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?
This was a great thought-provoking post and I’d like to hear the thoughts on this as well. Anyone have anything to share?