London or stonewall??

pawn structure of c3-d4-e3-f4 for white or c6-d5-e6-f5 for black

Introduction To The London System & Jobava London System...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-london-system

The Stonewall Attack...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/stonewall-attack

The Stonewall is better, but the London is simpler. However, I would rather play Kings Pawn and, if the opponent plays that, the Caro. If d4, I play the Dutch.

With all my heart, Stonewall is one trick pony. London is a +0.0 type of opening where white can get an advantage eazily, Soo obviously london.

Personally, I'll say that London is better. Stonewall is solid and aggressive, but if black knows how to respond, you'll have a hard time breaking through due to your bad bishop. London, on the other hand; is just solid and more positional. But I think it has an edge over the stonewall due to it has barely any flaws. It isn't as aggressive as the stonewall, and instead more slow, positional and solid. Though both the London and Stonewall are practical choices in a timed game.

the london is solid, just boring

which doesn't stop me from playing it lol

This thread sparked my interest in the Stonewall.

I downloaded the PDF of "The Stonewall Attack" by Andrew Soltis (it's free) He states the heyday of the Stonewall attack was from 1880-1920s and lost favor with GM's due a rival Queenside strategy i.e. The Pillsbury Attack in the QGD.

Looking at the games in the book, & looking at games from the heyday of the opening, I don't see dull games or games void of positional strategy. In fact I don't see black equalizing easily against Lasker, Marshall, Pillsbury, Capablanca, Saltan Khan, Colle, Maroczy.. These players where the top players of there day. (My gut tells me very few 2500 elo players of today could beat those players playing the openings they played back then.. ( my belief is as time passes, so does the advanced theory of some of these opening..

I like London

Fair point, But there IS a eazy modern way to crush it.

For your level you should probably be playing main line openings with a vast amount of structures so then you'll improve faster. If you don't like that idea or don't want to improve, I really like the Colle system! Very simple plans (e4 break) takes very little study, is pretty thematic, and can get some very attacking positions, with more nuance than the London. Have fun playing!

A) I'm a club player

B) I don't play the Stonewall Attack (I might start now) but take the previous into account with what I wrote below

Solid line ... but They didn't play 3. 3f4 They played 1.d4 2.e3 & 3.Bd3 (I suspect they opened up this way because the line you covered)

1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 Bg4 4.f3 Bh5 5.c4 5...c6 or 5...c5 with 6.Nc3 e6 7.Nh3 Nbd7 8.Nf4 (was played during the 1880s anytime some essayed ...Bg4 )

typical game of the era "Harry Nelson Pillsbury vs Nicolai Jasnogrodsky 1893 NY"

check it out...

White's knight goes to f4 by way of h3 & after the knight captures the bishop only then does white push the pawn to f4 . **** with my limited chess skill the resulting positions look like both sides have a lot of chess to play with***

IMO This is a great example of lost theory on why a line was played a certain way. Yes... yes... and yes... it's old school... that's said . If your not familiar with the nuances of this line.. (a line that was played by very good chess players for 10 yrs ) and your thinking I'll just play my Bg4 early, push c5 and administer a crush ... It may happen but not due to the early Bg4 sortie

dude the line doesn't work cause of bg4, it works cause of cxd4.

you might be getting off topic.

I am not questioning the line you proposed,

I'm just stating the following :

A) they did not allow that line due to the move order 1.d4 2.e3 and 3.Bd3 (probably because of your line ) so no.. it's not a crush..

&

B) if guys like Pilllsbury played 1.d4 2. e3 & Bd3 they played it for a reason. They were very good chess players, so why did they play line ???

I think I answered my own question with the highlighted game, which was the trend of the day back then.

That thought leads back into the original premise that started our discussion ( i.e. on "forgotten theory" surrounding antiquated openings like the the Stonewall Attack ...