London system or the Stonewall attack?

Hi all, I am curious about the two chess openings as I have been playing the London system and have come across the Stonewall attack. I wondered which is better in 

1) KIng Activeness

2) Aggressiveness

3) Defence

4) King safety

5) Popularity ( How often do d4 players play it?)

6) Whether it is easy to counter

7) How rare the counter is

8) How Passive it is

I will appreciate if you would put the number of the point you are answering. Thanks

I have no direct information about this, but as an indirect indication I have seen a number of 21st century books advocating the London and only one 21st century book advocating the Stonewall Attack.

1) If you’re a d4 player and want to activate your king early on, 2.Kd2 is what you’re looking for.

2) IMO both openings aim to create a passive but solid pawn formation, which means that neither are aggressive choices.

3) Defense: both are very solid at club level.

4) King safety: no worries in both openings.

5) Popularity: the London is quite popular at lower levels, while the Stonewall Attack is rarely played.

6) The Stonewall Attack is easy to counter if black knows how to fight for e4. The London is a sound, if not ambitious, opening.

7) The Stonewall Attack is essentially unplayable at 1900+. The London is playable at all levels, as long as you don’t mind a draw.

8) Personally I believe the Stonewall Attack is more passive, as white commits the entire middlegame to defending the hole on e4. The London, on the other hand, is quite flexible. Offensives typically start with a timely Nf3-e5.

Both are inferior lines for White and are easy to counter.

If you want aggressiveness and King Safety, play one of the main lines that castles Kingside, Like 2.c4 and play the Exchange QGD.

Against the London, there are at least 3 good lines for Black.  The Kings Indian setup, the double fianchetto setup, and the line with d5, e6, Nf6, Bd6, by, Bb7, and Ne4.

 

The Stonewall is even weaker in that it can only be played with equality in certain lines, and trying to play it against certain structures by Black give White an inferior game.  The Stonewall is dependent upon commitment.  That is why as Black, to play the Stonewall without a completely inferior position, White has to have played e3 or g3.  The stonewall is horrible against 1.d4, 2.c4, 3.Nc3, and 4.Nf3.  After 1 d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3, 4...d5 is a horrible move.  White has a clear advantage after 5.Bf4!, 6.e3, and 7.Bd3.  You cannot allow this setup by White and play the Stonewall.  4...Bb4 is far stronger.

 

Same goes for the Stonewall Attack.  Black has not committed and the line is bad.  Black's goal is simple.  Trade down to a LSB vs N endgame (Black getting the Knight).  Good N vs Bad Bishop scenario.

stonewall attack is poor mans london system

London isn't particularly ambitious, but is it really "inferior?" I'm asking seriously.

 

At club level it, where blunders bring you down, it seems like something *fairly* solid and with decent attacking chances (if black doesn't know what hes doing) would be pretty good ( and far from inferior).

London System...

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

Stonewall Attack...

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

 

Objectively, the London System is better, although none gives an edge.

At higher levels, the London System is "popular" because although Black equalizes, there remain chances (for both) because the pawn structures remain somewhat flexible in the long term, which doesn't happen that often with the Stonewall. Besides, as the Stonewall was very popular a century ago, several effective plans have been refined against it.

At amateur level, I believe the Stonewall may be better because the plans are simpler and focused on a few "roads" for the pieces on both sides, making it easier to play with enough precision. Also, because of those characteristics, an amateur may study and understand it faster and better, allowing him to punish even slight inaccuracies from the rival.

"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov

Stonewall is just not good for White. London system can be played in interesting ways, but Your question indicates the intention of playing it as a "one size fits all" opening, with no attempts to mix things up (like 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5 3.e4 or nice lines suggested by Simon Williams or stuff Baadur Jobava plays). With this approach, it is much better to create normal d4 repertoire, based around exchange variation of Queen's gambit declined, Rubinstein Nimzo-Indian, a3 against Queen's Indian, early d5 against King's Indian... This way you would get solid game with some positional tension.

Don't get me wrong: London System is playable, but probably detrimental to your chess developement at this stage. Its the opening for people who played everything against good opposition, and want to try something less theoretical, not something that ought to be used as Your first opening.

Who knows

https://www.ichess.net/blog/stonewall-attack/

 

Compared to 1.d4/2.c4?  Yes, the London is inferior.

"... A typical way of choosing an opening repertoire is to copy the openings used by a player one admires. ... However, what is good at world-championship level is not always the best choice at lower levels of play, and it is often a good idea to choose a 'model' who is nearer your own playing strength. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

 

One needs to recognize what pawn structures they are best at.  Blocked, Mobile, Static, Open, or Dynamic" and play openings that lead to those structures.

I do best with blocked positions, but also have a decent understanding of Static, Open, and Dynamic situations.  Mobile pawn centers are my downfall, which is why I avoid openings like the Grunfeld and Alekhine like the plague, and favor the French and King's Indian Defenses.  French usually leads to blocked or open centers (IQP specifically), occasionally status (Exchange Variation).  King's Indian tends to be blocked or dynamic, depending on variation.

 

Recognize your own strengths, don't try to mimic someone elses.

 What is the best way for someone to figure out what structures they are best at? Is there a structured approach to figuring this out, or is it just play a bunch of different openings until you find one where you don't lose as much/"feels" better, etc.?

In a general way, the fewer the roads and inroads the pawn structures allow for the pieces of both sides, the less tactic and dynamic the game is. By dynamic you understand that the main targets shift often and fast, requiring a keen eye for tactics, time (tempos to crystalize threats), critical squares and precise calculation.

So, the fewer the roads and inroads, the more positional, strategic, long term maneuvers and siege-like the game is. The more roads and inroads, the more tactical and dynamical the game may become. Then again, both are affected by the number of active pieces and the presence of weaknesses in both camps, which explains why is often necessary to open up the position (clearing roads and inroads by transforming the existant pawn structures) in order to exploit a weakness and, or to activate the pieces for an attack.

Then, if wishing a game with fewer tactics, the player will prefer stable and even blocked pawn structures, while those who enjoy tactics and the difficulties of conducting a dynamic game may prefer unbalanced pawn structures which allow pawn breaks to open up the position in a sector or the whole board.

I also like the Stonewall Attack, especially for those of us who don't yet have "Master" in their title....relatively easy and straight forward to learn, and dangerous against those who play less than optimum defense against it...

Whether Stonewall Attack is better than London System is a point for debate (consider for instance that Magnus Carlsen has ventured the London System on many occasions against world class competition, but I'm not aware that he has done the same with the Stonewall).  It is true however that, as the Stonewall is not currently in fashion, it is much less likely that your (non-Master) opponents will be very familiar with how to best defend against it.

Stonewall Attack Resources...

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

 

Www.chessmasterschool.com

You'll know by the end of month 2 and they are discussed in detail in months 7 and 8.

 

Pawn Structure Chess by Andrew Soltis describes and analyzes the major pawn structures arising from the opening and their implications for how to plan.  Similarly for  "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" by Mauricio Flores Rios.