Quote:


I had intended to reply to you Tafl to say that the answer was already planned in the original 3.Nc3 Zichichi's game of December's update but the whole Forum diseappered then!
Hope it satisfied your expectations...

Next february's update will finish with the subject including an exhaustive review of the book. Do not miss it!
It is absolutely essential for the Londoner ( against 1...d5!) to hear both sides of the story!

Tafl, are you still interested in this ?

@BladezII

I must quote Bent Larsen: Long analysis - wrong analysis (no offense intended)

After 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.Bg3 0-0 8.Bd3 Nh5 9.Ne5 g6 10.f4 f6 11.Bxg6 hxg6 12.Nxg6 Ng7 13.Nxf8 Bxf8, I agree that White's correct plan should be to push his h-pawn. But I would like to develop a little first, so I prefer 14.Qf3.

Then, of course, Black has many options. But natural attempts to develop and break the centre open seem to fail, e.g. 14...cxd4 15.exd4 Qb6 16.Rb1 Bd7 (16...Nf5!?) 17.h4 Re8 18.h5 e5 19.fxe5 fxe5 20.0-0 Bf5 (20...Be6 21.h6 Nf5 22.Qh5+-) 21.h6+-.

This obviously is only a sample line. At some point you simply have to break it off and evaluate instead of calculating further. But I am eager to see your improvement after 14.Qf3.

I note with pleasure that Prie takes a look at the 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5 3.e4 gambit in the d-pawn special update.

I would have loved to see a comment on 5...a6 6.a4!? but I assume we must wait for practical OTB tests (and 6.Qe2 seems to be doing fine).

His 3...Nc6 recommendation is interesting. There is however something strange after 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.exd5 dxc3 6.dxc6 Qxd1+ 7.Rxd1 when he says that 7...dxc6, which is illegal, is equal. I assume he means the natural 7...bxc6, but then a word or two about Johnsen/Kovacevic' 8.Bc7!? would have been helpful.

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 O-O 8. Nbd2  Qe7 9. Ne5 transposes to another line discussed before the server went blank.  This is OK with Black.)

7...   O-O
8. Bd3 Nh5

Black seems to get a good game game here but none of this is mentioned anywhere.  I have my own material on this, some of it goes past move 30.  White has wasted time with his dark bishop so this time taken by Black is compensated or paid back by White.  Any champions for White here?

I am ready/prepared to discuss this thouroughly.

[Event "ICC 3 0"]
[WhiteElo "2543"]
[BlackElo "2584"]


1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Bg4 4. Ne5 Bf5 5. e3 e6 6. g4 Be4 7. f3 Bg6 8. h4 h6
9. Nxg6 fxg6 10. Bd3 Kf7 11. Nd2 Bd6 12. Qe2 Bxf4 13. exf4 Qd6.... 1-0

I always play like this (Ne5+g4) why is this so bad? I keep winning them all

Many thanks for this, tafl. I understand what you mean about crashing the server!

Yes, I'd love a copy of the posts as a Word file, just if you got time! -- many thanks! The address to send it to is: michael.ayton@voro.fsnet.co.uk

[quote]Fortunately I took a back-up of the main London thread (The Controversial London System) just before (or even during) the crash.  [/quote]

Would you be able, in time, to repost the whole thread again on the Forum, tafl? I know this would take time, but you wouldn't have to do it all in one go. The material was invaluable.

Quote:


Nice to see I'm not the only one feeling this way!

Quote:


Thanks, actually the book arrived today, as I was hoping it would have some info on such lines. And perhaps some lines with a reversed Baltic Defence? Which can be tricky enough after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5!?

Though I will probably not use it against the Indian defences. Anyway, I thought it could be a nice change instead of facing the Sicilian all the time.

Quote:


Agreed. Honestly, I don't see why the publishers refrained from more honest titles like 'Bore Your Opponents To Tears!', 'Not Losing with The London System' or simply 'The Solid London'. 

Lines with a 'boring' reputation are often quite annoying to face, e.g. 1.e4 c5 2.c3 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6/Nc6 3.Bb5(+) are two examples of how concealed winning ambitions and a frustrated opponent can work very well together.

So why do the publishers try to deceive prospective readers with a title few take seriously, when the truth may actually be a better sales pitch?! ???

I swore not to post here again until some information about the disappearing posts were provided. But I will break my vow.

@Taljechin:
"Winning with the London System" actually recommends  an early c4 against early ...Bf5 lines and quite a few early ...c6 lines.

@ MNb
The book covers 1...d5, 1...Nf6 and 1...e6 in full. 1...f5 get some detail too while other 1st moves are treated more briefly.

@John Cox:
The main point of delaying h3 against ...g6 lines is to wait for ...d6, as White doesn't have time for h3 against the ...g6 + ...d5 (Gruenfeld) lines. The point being that in these lines White must play very accurately to get an edge against ...c5, ...Nc6 and ...Nfd7, planning ...e5.

Does the book also treat other Black first moves but 1...d5 ?

Well, before everything went klablooie here . . .

I'm waiting to see if any others are as impressed with "Win with the London System" (Gambit) by Sverre Johnsen and Vlatko Kovacevic as I have been.

Just a solid effort with the ingredients I think a good repertoire book should have.

Book titles are what the publisher thinks will sell the book.  But "Win with . . . " may be a stretch.  The London is not something that will give White the strongest advantage from having the first move.  Of course, if you play better than your opponent, you're home free.  What it will give you, at least should give you, is a middle game where you are playing on familiar turf.  This is no small thing if the time you can spend studying chess is limited by, well, life.  So, the subtitle, "Dynamic new approaches to make your opponents crumble !" was probably something dreamed up in the Gambit sales department by someone who doesn't even play chess.  I can only wish.  The authors recommend the second move 2. Bf4 rather than 2. Nf3.  I have had the opportunity to try this in two OTB games.  The sampling is so small as to be statistically insignificant, but so far, my opponents haven't crumbled.  Actually, I lost both games, but in both cases the opening was not at fault.  Swiss system pairings where I was the underdog by several hundred rating points (and making dumb middle game moves) was the culprit.

And "London System . . ."  Actually, the London isn't really a "system" where you can roll out the same opening moves no matter what.  It is really, as the authors of the book point out, a "conglomerate of related lines . . ."  So, you still have to do the work.

Now that I have criticized the cover material -- which doesn't really bother me a bit -- let me say that what is inside the cover is great.

I'd suggest that if you play the London system this book is must have material.  But if you're looking for something to play against the London, all you need is your own pet line, probably an adaptation of what you play against 1. d4 anyway.  (In my case, the Slav.)  Don't worry, White's "dynamic play" won't really make you "crumble"  -- if you play well.  Just buckle your seat belt for a fun middle game.