The Beauty of Chess *London System*

 Hi Guys,

I have recently been watching a youtube chess channel where I learned the London system. In this topic I would like to talk to you about this opening as well as share some basic ideas for beginners and a game highlighting some of what I want to talk about. For example, i find it really interesting how in this rather closed system there seem to be few gaps and opportunities for your opponents to break out on the queen side earlier on in the game while at the same time it looks like all your pieces are finding the best squares. At move 8 I had developed my minor pieces and black had castled. Pay attention to the beautiful placement of the bishops and knights, the dark squared bishop is outside the black-based pawn structure, while the light squared bishop finds home for himself on the gap in between my centre structure on d3. I find this to have a very pleasing look as well as a great system to play.

In this game I had the white pieces.

I would like to include some general knowledge of the opening which I find most interesting and I'm sure some beginners who aren't aware will find it beneficial to their play. For example, developing the knight on move 4. The kings knight is usually developed to f3 to control the centre squares, however it is better to play this move after your opponent has played e6 as that then doesn't allow his light squared bishop to come to g4 very easily. Another point I would like to make is the play on the queenside with the usual pawn structure on the dark squares. There are better examples of this than this game, however I would like to keep the post short. The dark squared pawn structure completely isolates the opponents dark's squared bishop in the early stages of the game as well as his queenside knight so he has to invest extra moves and breaks to develop his play on that side of the board. Notice how the light squared bishop is also taking away the only decent square from his light squared bishop. Overall I would like to say that I am really amazed by how well the pieces seem to be placed in this opening, working in harmony and finding beautiful outposts. I think this opening is an example of piece coordination and some key ideas in chess which many beginners may find helpful. I have included a game of mine playing the London system which i hope you enjoy.

Thank you for reading my post

The London System is equal, but because so many players lose to it because they can't play against it, they complain about how it's bad, etc. 

It's a system that's generally easy to play for white. 

 "  The kings knight is usually developed to f3 to control the centre squares, however it is better to play this move after your opponent has played e6 as that then doesn't allow his light squared bishop to come to g4 very easily.  "

Thats not a tip on how to use the g1 Knight. Thats the philosophy of the London system-Torre attack and Colle Zukertor. The effectiveness of their strategy in the long turn depends a lot from Blacks early perspectives. With out e6 on the board its a totally different story. You will understand that in time...

London system hater.. 

On a serious note, ofc later on there are countless possibilities just talking about how pieces are looking very early on and of course with correct play this system is equal and can go either way.

that was a good attacking game. I also play the london system and I think we both learned from the Ginger GM's channel lol. One improvement to this game you might consider is playing Ne5 before your opponent plays pawn to e5 which releases his queen-bishop battery. Perhaps its better to prevent counterplay so your attack can go smoothly. thought clearly his counterplay was nothing in this game lol

Everything is relative, comparing to modern chess engines, human GMs are indeed kinda weak.

Certainly. I have learned so much from his videos and DVDs. Thanks for your feedback.

As far as people saying Tomashevsky is weak.. Magnus Carlsen is an absolute machine and anyone can be made to look funny against him, after all I am sure we can remember at least one game where we have made shocking moves one after the other   

" On a serious note, ofc later on there are countless possibilities just talking about how pieces are looking very early on and of course with correct play this system is equal and can go either way. "

Don't confuse the strategic potentials with the possibilities.

The Italian is a great opening too, but there is a reason why the Spanish is better for White.

...and I am not an Italian hater.

 I agree, today super GMs their rating are inflated; they go against 2500 elo GM, they lose to them, even Carlsen.

No player can learn an opening through youtube, its only from a book one become knowledgeable in an opening.  One argument against the London System is beginners stay low rated because they never learn how to play the open position and attack well. The London System is meant for ( 1800 elo) players who have some understanding 1.e4 and 1.d4 opening, such a player will understand when to do pyramid pawn structure d4, e3 and c3 or slight L- shape d4, c4 and e3 or times you need to push e4.

It's about the options Jen Gaias and the potential. In super GM level the Spanish is so well extensively analyzed that offer practically the same chances as the Italian, but if you look it from a theoretical point of view then it's difficult to do not realize that the Ruy Lopez strategically gives more options to White play for in comparison with the Italian.

After Bb5 Black's has to choose either to allow this Bishop stay there threatening to damage he's structure or to kick it back extending he's pawn structure in a early point were the rest of he's pieces is not prepared to support the extension. All this results to consessions from Black's perspective that in Italian does not obligated to suffer.

Before the Berlin came in and dominate the opening as an anditote, the popularity in the preferences is significant. Just look the World Championship matches and count how many Lopez have been played and how many Italians.

Karjakin you mentioned, last year against Carlsen he played 10 Spanish and one Italian.

My comparison with the London system has to do with the early e6 move. After Black's include this move in the early stage, then Whites opportunity to have strategically a better game increase significant. With out e6 on the board the London system does not offer the same potential.

" My point is , in the 21st century , there are no clear answers.

Spanish might not be better than Italian ,Scandinavian might equalise and London system might actually be more than fine.  "

 Ofcourse London system is more than fine. What that has to do with how much effective is with e6 on the board or not? It actually has...but who cares to analyze!

I am sorry , but if you look again the both diagrams you posted, you will notice that Blacks position is not the same...Black in the Spanish has played a6-b5 to kick the Bishop back were in the Italian is not necessary...

Now as a good observer you are, go and check the rest of the game in the Spanish and see how many of the desicions White and Black took were involved in this extended structure and most importand how Blacks endgame gets affected! 

See...the a6-b5 becomes a problem if Black doesnt find a way to equalize the piece activity, when in the Italian there is no such a problem dealing with.

The thing is that Karjakins approach is passive and is difficult to understand but for what it matters, you can imagine the strategic concept for someone who want to play chess fighting for a win and not seek and hide.

Looks like a troll post, showing a game where your opponent starts misplacing his pieces on move 3 should be illegal.

Jengaias @

Is it possible that you don't pay attention what I write?

Karjakins approach against Carlsen in the whole World Championship match was passive, like he came down to play in order to do not lose rather to win! That was admitted by the same words of he's manager when he claimed after Sergey's only win that this was their strategy plan for this series....to win one game and make a draw in all others. In fact Karjakin's manager compared this approach with the Greek national football team when she won the Eurocup in 2004 by scoring only one goal in the critical games. He said : " All we need is one goal, like the Greek team in 2004".

I guess Chess is not football and Karjakin is not a Greek. The art of approaching passive requires a different mentality : You need to smell blood and know how to hunt for it when your opponent gives you the chance, as Magnus did a lot of times but Sergey preferred to close he's eyes!

To do not misunderstand my self. In general Karjakin's play is not passive but he's strategy approach against Carlsen was. In second...Karjakin never was a Najdorf player and never will be. The fact that it employs the defense ocassionally is irrelative. From the top ten only Maxime Vachier Lagrave and Giri use with consistency the Najdorf.

The london system and Beauty should never be in the same sentence.  

London system and annoying, that is a different story

Finally someone in this thread that makes sense!

It seems...you pay much attention to a thread that makes no sense!!

The price of having too much free time...

No idea about this, but I can tell about one of my teammates. He's a 1700 FIDE, but he had to play in our first team for a couple of seasons (he was more like a 1600 the first time), facing people around 2000 in the sixth board in a regular basis. He got a ton of draws, even a win once, playing the London as white.

No Karjakin didn't . Go and see he's games played Whites in the candidates tournament and compare he's approach against Carlsen. It's impossible don't see a difference even if you are ? clueless.

Football and Greeks was not a humoristic comment. It was a real statement from Karjakin's manager that I used it to show you understand how he was prepared to approach the match vs Carlsen. Sergey came down to do not lose...he's approach was passive. Everyone who understand something about chess noticed that...

Perhaps you are right about the way he use the Italian and Spanish in general but again I feel confident that against someone else in a different competition he will have take some risks more...

Resulting all this to the conclusion that Karjakin's way to use the Spanish/Italian thematic plans vs Magnus in the final match its not something to rely on saying that ...both openings are the same. It's not.

Just...to not forget! There was a statement from Magnus second GM P.Heine Nielsen saying that as a opening preparation team it's difficult to find new ideas to play as White in this Championship match series. That is a fact for Karjakin's team also...so here's your answer , why suddenly , the Spanish become Italian or vice versa.