exigentsky wrote on 07/19/17 at 09:13:50:


He says that it's better from him to play more ambitious openings, to face real problems and important decisions as soon in the game as possible. Having to make decisions and (important!) to analyze them afterwards is the key to improve.

Salut,

Scarblac wrote on 07/19/17 at 12:53:37:


Modern players have a HUGE repertoire of openings (especially for rapid and blitz). I looked at the Danzhou Supertournament games and don't remember a single London System. I think it's primarily used to avoid preparation (especially potentially long unintuitive computer lines like in the Sicilians or Grunfelds) and get a tiny but safe pull for White. It obviously has very different structures but it feels like the same goals as the Catalan in terms of trying to play for only 2 results. Anyway, Carlsen and Kramnik too more recently, have played pretty much anything which isn't terrible. Don't get me wrong, I think the London is a good opening but I don't see why it's so hyped and getting so much more popular.

People aren't even avoiding theory that much because they have to learn a new opening with its own theory (which is growing quickly)! It's not the hardest to learn but that applies to BOTH sides and main line openings tend to have dozens of opportunities to play a good side line with an offbeat idea while generally putting more pressure on the opponent if they make a mistake. So why bother replacing one's whole repertoire with the London? 

Personally, I find it fun trying different openings and just came off a 1. b3 stint so I might try it out. However, practically speaking, I think the London's advantages would only really apply if a player had not studied any openings previously. If you've developed a repertoire for a decade, then the London won't save you any time as opposed to just going some good side lines. 

With that said, I've only played a dozen Londons as White in blitz games and the rest of my experience was facing it a few years ago (surprisingly, more in tournaments than online). I tended to go for hedgehog type positions and it was OK but it wasn't trivial to totally equalize. Once I started playing the Grunfeld though, I found the London extremely easy to deal with. g6 structures just seem to shut down a lot of the pressure from White's light squared bishop while allowing more powerful pawn breaks too.

Recently at my club, my FM opponent played 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.h4!?. I don't really believe in it, but that's the kind of thing that's out there nowadays...

Grischuk has played 3.Nc3 8 times now in my TWIC-based database, Karjakin 4 times, Aronian and Nakamura have played it too (all of those are probably mainly rapid and blitz games, but still).

I think the easies way to counter the London is to play a QID setup: Nf6-e6-c5-b6-Bb7-Be7 with a d6-hedgehog style of position, aiming for a e5 break.

The best player of our club and a full-time coach is teaching the London to a bunch of 60+ (years old) players start playing recently. It's easy to learn (he says). But he is against doing this to kids or young improving players.

One of the keys is that it is easy to explain, easy to learn and if you see Carlsen/Kramnik playing it from time to time... people feel it's a good option (and sometimes it is a practical good decision).

In the tournaments I play (opposition between 1700 - 2200 fide) I see a lot of London system games. A lot more than 5 years before.

Salut,

RdC wrote on 07/18/17 at 16:13:01:

This is very similar to what Hebden has been doing for decades with 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 leading to either a 150 Attack, a Barry Attack (3...d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3) or a "Vorotnikov-Kogan-Hebden Attack" (3...d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.Qd2). The two former lines were also in Summerscale's Killer Chess Opening Repertoire for White, which I used to play a lot.

I think 3...d5 is the more annoying move for White to face after 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3, even though the 150 Attack Pirc is also OK for Black theoretically. The point is of course Black is often tricked into this and isn't a regular Pirc player.

So if Hebden's move order is now 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.Nc3, does he have something new in mind against 3...d5? By not committing to an early Nf3, f2-f3 is still possible, perhaps followed up with either e2-e4, h2-h4 or both, depending on what Black does. Food for thought!

exigentsky wrote on 07/17/17 at 20:06:20:


I saw Mark Hebden use it with a dangerous twist in a weekend tournament recently.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Qd2 and you've move-ordered Black into a 150 Attack for many practical purposes. 

That's a long way from the stereotyped London player who will play d4, Nf3, Bf4, c3, e3, N1d2, Be2, O-O, h3 in the first 9 moves, with Bd3 or Bc4 and the timing of Bf4-h2 the only deviations. 

barnaby wrote on 07/17/17 at 17:33:30:


Yeah, I think in a way computers also showed people that A LOT of chess openings don't offer White much of anything vs reasonable defenses. And so, if chess is a draw anyway and you can't get an advantage as White, why even bother trying? I think it's slightly misguided though because while the main line openings don't provide an advantage, Black often has only a few choices at each move where this is true and mistakes can be punished. On the other hand, if you start 1. b3 and they go randomly a5, you still can't do much to prove an advantage except in the subtlest sense. If they play a5 vs 1. e4, they face enormous pressure. You can pounce on them. 

Anyway, I know 2. Bf4 is supposed to be a slightly better move order for a pure London player so that probably helps increase its popularity but looked at elite tournaments, I still see the London used quite rarely. The books make it sound like it's being advocated as a great opening for White at master play. Sure, Carlsen played it and Kramnik played it but it's just the random occasional game. It's more a proof of viability than endorsement and it's hard for a White opening to not be viable.

I'm probably a bit biased though because the London takes a lot of play out from my QID. I don't struggle to equalize vs it and know the main ideas but it feels like to actually win, White has to be a bit more ambitious as well (unless I'm truly a lot better than my opponent).