London system is bad for beginners

Yes London is a sheet

not to mention but the london system is quite dry for both colors, so if you really want to enjoy chess, then play something else.

a : Unless to have a definition of beginner like " if you are not a gosu so you are a newbie and a newbie is a beginner " normally it is not something difficult to no longer be a beginner.

For a beginner, he may not care about openings because as he is also a beginner in tactics and endgames he will quickly find himself in a losing position and when he has a winning position as he doesn't know for example how to win an endgame K +R vs K it will be a draw.

b : Ding vs. Nepomniachtchi | FIDE World Championship | Game 6 ft. Giri, Howell & Naroditsky (youtube.com) From memory Anish Giri says that as White the London is difficult because Black has lots of ways to play therefore for example people who believe that with London there is no theory and that there are few variations are wrong.

1 : As we see in the game "Nepo found a trick for the opening" which consists of playing a Carlsbad structure :

2 : Which can lead us to ask the question 1) d4 d5 2) c4 e6 3) cxd5 exd5 is bad

no of course and the Carlsbad structure is something that seems interesting and important to me to know how to play.

London system is a viable choice, especially if coupled with Caro-Kann Defense and Slav Defense.
It is certainly not bad: it has been played at any level, though it may not be to everybody's taste.
On the contrary gambits (except Queen's Gambit) are bad for beginners.

the polerio and Staunton gambit are quite agressive and sound+ teaches beginners how to use active pieces and open files to win.

I will keep this in mind

Huh? And that's supposed to be an argument against the London system?

Not this again...

You London players have got to stop smashing these guys... all you are doing is making them come on to the forums and cry...

#9 Never been this polite to anyone in my life. Please read the 3rd line and continue from there. If you can't, maybe due to technical difficulties or something else, my arguement is that in london system, you dont get closed centre structure, hanging pawns structure and other such structures. This limits a player's ability to form up plans in different structures.

Why would this be true? This argument seems completely made up. Any type of position can occur from any opening, it depends on how the players play the middlegame.

#12 is it possible to get french-like closed structure in london system, I think not.

#12 sorry, I researched a bit. London is the best opening ever. Keep playing it. I am going to play it. The arguement is over. Bye.

You should premove the london system in bullet. It will give you a time advantage

Im_a_Crow schreef: If you just play chess to chill, have fun and destroy your friends, I think london system is the best opening in that scenario. you can learn it in half an hour and play it for the rest of your life. But if you want to get better at chess, I think it is not good, this is because london limits you to type of position that can occur. For example, if you play ruy lopez, you can get closed centre, open centre, hanging pawns and other various pawn structures. This is not the case with london.

Seems you haven’t played that many London games… Your last sentence, all of that one could achieve in a London.

Every opening is ‘bad’ for a beginner…because there are way to many aspects of the royal to be mastered, other than the opening. Play whatever suits your style and energy and focus on studying tactics, strategy and the endgame.

Odesskij plays the Nimzo Larsen and English Defense almost exclusively…and he is whooping many opponents’ ### es with both openings. These openings are considered ‘dubious or bad’. But in the hands of an expert, these are lethal.