There are so many lines and subvariations in both openings that is impossible to characterize the one positional and the other aggressive. For example the Queens gambit with Nf3 can give a lot of dynamic positions when at the same time black can play a solid system system against the London neutralizing any aggressiveness.
In my point of view White has more chances to play dynamic with the Queens gambit than with the London .
So essentially, queen's gambit is better because it allows for more flexibility and possibilities?
There's only really one difference. Queen's Gambit is actual chess and the London System isn't.
Really ?
"... what do you need to know in order to play [the London System]? Not much! ..." - GM Gingen_GM (2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-perfect-opening-for-the-lazy-student
"... the Queen's Gambit ... is indeed the queen of chess openings. ..." - IM John Cox (2006)
How aggressive can you play the London against the Indian set ups? It's different to beat someone in fast time controls where a sacrifice can be underestimated and different story in slow time control.
You can also play the Queens gambit with pawn sacrifices but that doesn't mean they are correct!...and you don't need to study 400-500 pages theory.
You can't be serious! If this game is an example how White can play aggressive against the KID because black didn't do anything to counter the position and allowed Spassky to push c4-c5 then I am sorry you have stay behind in theory. You know it's pretty easy to find convenient examples but the truth is White can't play like this unless he return back in 1968.
A Kings Indian player is gonna play c5 first before White push c4. A Kings Indian player is gonna play Be6 and Qb6 hitting on Whites Queenside before the first player consolidate an attack.
Against the Kings Indian either it's a Gruenfeld or a classical there are not correct sacrifices unless black doesn't know what he is doing. I am sorry to disappoint you.
at your level: London system. what's actually better for when your good: queens gambit.
Tons of GMs play the London these day. It's not just for lazy club players.
Tons of GMs play the London these day. It's not just for lazy club players.
i know it's not bad for master play however you see the queens gambit 5 times more than the London system. i think the queens gambit is better than the London system but it doesn't mean it's not playable.
i half agree with you.
My opinion is that systems with Bf4 or Bg5 are easier to handle then those with e2-e3 before moving that bishop. But after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 or 1... Nf6 2. c4 there is very much theory on those systems with the free bishop. So the london is a practical choice, which you can play cowardly without knowing much or more challenging, well booked up!
have played both. London system without any success. Queens gambit is OK, but very boring.
I think queens gambit is far more solid
If you think the Queens Gambit is boring then you probably haven't understood it
have played both. London system without any success. Queens gambit is OK, but very boring.
I think queens gambit is far more solid
Because you don't know how to play it...
For example, in how many games you moves Kf1 INSTEAD of 0-0, so you can attack with g4, Rg1 and g5 ? Or how many times to sacrificed pawns for initiative ( or a piece for attack ) ?
You mean in London System or queens gambit? I tried to attack in few games, but doesn't work, because I can't think in blitz so fast, unless there is a tactic I already know. It might work in longer time controls. Right now in blitz, my opponents win me by playing consistently very simple non blundering moves in a very short time. Most of the times, when I try to force a win, I run out of time and blunder and it doesn't matter how many good moves I did until that point or how much more material I had and if I was close to deliver a checkmate. In longer time controls, I would had won 100%, but in blitz, it doesn't happen often.
My current choice of opening for white is queens gambit. But when I press the play button and the system gives me white, I am sad and when it gives me black, I am exited. It shouldn't be that way and that says a lot.
I play both. I like them, I don't consider one to be more aggressive than the other. After the first 5 or 10 moves, you certainly ARE playing chess. I'm sure if we had the internet when hypermodern play was being developed, people would have said it isn't real chess. But these are the good old days! The London system is becoming widely used and the lines are changing, it's going to be part of chess history for better or for worse.
I've heard it said that if a line doesn't have a name yet, then it's probably no good. Well that's pretty interesting since openings are still being named. Now's the time to carve out your niche -- win enough games with one of these new lines and you can have opening named after yourself!
What do you guys think about these openings? I think the queen's gambit is more solid and positional, while the London system is more aggressive.