London System

Hi everyone, I am rated around 1400 OTB and want to develop some kind of an opening repertoire. At my level, most players just attack when they can, so I like to play positional openings to let them struggle to create any constructive plan and therefore use up a lot of time. 

Looking for possible openings, I have come across the London System for White. Is it a sound opening? And if so, where can I find information on it? What is usually the plan in the London? If it is not sound, why? And what alternative opening would suit me instead?

Thank you in advance :)

One plan -or perhaps the major plan - in the London is to make your opponent hate you so much for choosing a boring opening that he blunders.

From what I can discern, playing white in the London is like a man in ballroom dancing wishing to "follow" rather than "lead".

It's an opening for sissies, old men, and cowards....

In other words, when you play Ziggy, play the London.

Players rated 2700+ play the London, so it's solid. The goal is to get through the opening with an equal position with almost no memorization. For that benefit, you give up the advantage of the first move.

Here are 12 videos that cover the London:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2A81DE3CC341D860

You can also watch the games of Kamsky and Nakamura for real examples.

Bring it on

I would disagree.  For a person who wants a good, solid position and wants to lean more on chess understanding and less on learning all the current opening theory, I think the London would be a good choice.  Perhaps not as ambitious, since you only put 1 pawn in the center, but it should be fine.  

Jannikr, I use 1. f4, and albeit you have to have an understanding of From's Gambit and its cousins, but for the most part, ideas such as the Stonewall are somewhat similar in initial structure to the London.

If you wish to learn something a bit more "mainline" that offers positional pressure, look into the modern d3 Ruy Lopez stuff.  

I would recommend the london system's cousin, the colle, more specifically the zukertort variation instead of the london. It's more fun to play, and you can have some exiting matches in it without giving up a solid position. If you need a book recommendation: GM summerscale's book is interesting, but I would recommend Rudel's book for a more fun approach. exerpts can be find on his site I think.

As a matter of fact, you kind of have an entire complex that comes out of 1. d4 that you can keep at your fingertips:

- Colle

- London

- Stonewall

- and even the Catalan with 1. d4 2. Nf3 3. g3, where you reserve when you want to open the center with c4.

AND (here we go again) a very strong non-committal move is 1. Nf3.  You can easily keep things very obscure from the first move, as you have not yet shown what pawn structure you are going for.

Thank you all for your helpful thougts.

I definitely like the concept of this opening (best example is Ziggy_Zugzwang :)). But I think it is still an effort to learn this opening correctly. So, is it really worth studying it if Black can - with correct play - equalize? Is there really that much Black can do wrong? I mean, if he just develops pieces, he will most likely be fine. Isn't it possible to take a little bit more time and just choose and study some positional (side)lines against 1...d5 and the Indian Defenses?

janniktr, I think the way people like Larsen described doing openings like this was not to win the war in the opening - that is what the middlegame is for.  So what if Black equalizes?  1. c4 e5 is equal, but not drawish, as I was told.  So, if they equalize, you still have plenty of winning chances.

Black will have an equal position if he just makes random moves...

As I see it, any sub-master level player who plays this opening is an asshole. He is boring people who just want to enjoy a game... If winning is that important to you then you shouldn't be playing chess at all.

Black can pretty much equalize against most openings. However versus the London it is rather easy and there are several ways to do so including a few that totally kill the game.

Personally i am really happy when people play the London vs me because there is really no risk for black (opposed to other sub optimal openings like the colle, vesersov etc) to run into anything nasty and prepared. Black can just fight for the initiative from move 2 (or 3 of you choose the even worse Nf3 Bf4 setup)

Of course winning is important... I want to improve and win more games and look for different ways to do so. My idea with learning the London System is basically that I do not lose any game in the opening: Since I am not particularly strong, my focus is on the middlegame and endgame.

My question is, if it is worth studying the London System at all. I mean, sooner or later, I will learn all the 2.c4 lines as well. Should I instead just begin to learn them now?

I think you should learn it, just because of all the haters out there.  Piss them off with your opening and then dust them in the middlegame, laughing all the way to the bank.  If they think it is that stupid, maybe they will resign sooner.

First, it takes a massive amount of time to learn real openings properly. Second, you need to learn numerous openings to build an entire repertoire. You can spend a huge amount of time on an opening and your opponent doesn't cooperate. If you are a strong master that's fine, but for myself, I have a long list of other things I want to learn in chess besides learning reams of opening lines. Memorizing a dictionary is not very enjoyable to me. You are significantly overestimating the amount of time it takes to learn the London System.

1. Play d4, Bf4, e3, then in some order play Nf3, Be2 or Bd3 depending on if black fianchettos kingside, c3, Nbd2, and usually h3. Play a few games and you will figure out the order pretty quick depending on what black plays.
2. Be flexible. Adjust with common sense if black does something stupid like 2...g5.
3. Use common sense when castling. Usually you castle short, but if you are going for a kingside attack by running the h-pawn and g-pawn toward black's castled position, you want to castle queenside or play Kd2 to connect the rooks.
4. The only thing you really have to learn is how to protect your dark-squared bishop. I'll post several situations and how to deal with it.

"We hate London and we hate London - We are the London haters !!!"

(Lyrics of Liverpool fans arriving at Euston station I once heard...)

The first thing black usually tries is trapping white's dark-squared bishop with Nh5. You protect the bishop with Bg5-Bh4 and controlling the d1-h5 diagonal with the queen and/or bishop. Black can force the trade but usually white ends up with the better of it. Here's an example:

An example where the knight on h5 is protected:

An example where black waits until white plays Nf3 to block the d1-h5 diagonal:

White can try hiding the bishop on h2:

Black can try Bd6 forcing a trade of bishops. This is probably the best way to remove white's dark-squared bishop, and it's not bad for either side, but black has weak dark squares and opens the h-file for white:

Or white can block the Bd6 move if he really wants to keep the dark-squared bishop:

Here is the video that covers some more lines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_8NBrGURs&list=PL2A81DE3CC341D860&index=12

Thank you very much!!

When should I usually play Bd3 to hinder the development of the light squared Bishop? Am I right to assume that I should only play h2 if there is time, e.g. only after a e6 move so I don't have to worry about the light squared Bishop developing? 

And what is my plan if...

How to parry the Qb6 nonsense?

Thanks :)

If black plays Bf5 then white should play Bd3. If black fianchettos kingside then Be2 since the diagonal from d3 to h7 is blocked at g6. Although black fianchetto kingside is a good target for white to play h4-h5 so Bd3 might still work if a kingside attack is your plan. Otherwise I'm not sure when Bd3 vs Be2 is preferred. I see both played even by the same players (ex. Kamsky). Probably requires further study.

I assume you mean h3 instead of h2. h3 is only played so you can play Bh2 to hang on to the bishop. If black plays Be7 then black controls g5 and you can't do the Bg5-Bh4 dance, so you have to play Bh2 if you want to keep the bishop. If black doesn't play Be7 then you can still do the dance so h3 is not required, but it seems like Kamsky plays h3 very frequently regardless. He may be playing it to prevent Bg4 also, which makes sense. But yes, it costs a tempo that is not always required, so it's a decision if you want to make that tradeoff.

The London System/opening is a very good opening for someone with your rating to learn.