What do you think about the London System?

 Kamsky 2700, Kasparov, 2830, Kovacevic 2550, DePrie 2560, Christainsen 2600, what is your problem with this opening, just not fashionable is it.

Many GM's make a living out of the London. 

I have won plenty of cash with it at tournaments and it is because my opponents had nothing but contempt for this opening and me for playing it. That included players rated 2000+

Big deal. I play the Evans Gambit and have had some luck with it over the years. Kasparov beat Piket and Anand with the Evans Gambit. Does that mean I run around telling everyone to play the Evans? No. There are some things that make it attractive and other elements of that opening that make it not so good. I play it, because it fits my particular style. If you want to play the London, go ahead. But to advocate it to others as if it were the best thing on earth is a bit much. Misleading to say the least.

 I dont get this at all, what are you saying here, that we should all slavishly follow computers, or that we should only play GM openings, no Morra Gambit, No Latvian Gambit, no Kings Gambit, No Budapest Defence, no Blackmar Diemar gambit, no Albin Counter Gambit and on and on, 

Sorry I think there is more to Chess than Anand, Kramnik, Carlsen and Topalov, most of whom incidentally are quite happy to play the London System a move down, only they call it the Slav and that makes it strong or sound or good or whatever.

I will play the English because I like playing it I will play the Hippo, which incidentally Fitz thinks is about -1.8 after 10 moves because I like it. I will play the London because my opponent Doesn't like it.

So  to computers Kramnik et al.

I think you're being unnecessarily defensive and are over-reacting to many of the replies.  Many of the reactions were a direct response to your claim that the London offers white an advantage.  Just because an opening offers white little hope of achieving an advantage out of the opening doesn't mean it's unplayable.  As with all openings, if you know it better than your opponent your chances of scoring well with it are greatly increased. 

That being the case, one should always strive to play the openings that one knows the best.  If you enjoy it and know it well and don't mind playing an opening that many players despise on aesthetic principle then by all means play the London.  But you have to be realistic about what you're playing and the general consensus is that white more or less squanders the first player advantage when he plays the London. 

But does that matter in a practical sense?  Not much.  After all, Fischer played the KIA and many of the complaints made about the London could also be said of the KIA.  Below master level, the opening is the last thing a player should be worried about.  I ruin more games in the endgame than I've ever ruined with an opening....

I think the London system izzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

 I think that is a fair reply and you have taken the point I am making here, that an obsession with opening theory is detrimental to chess development, the London is no better and no worse than any other opening, it enjoys the advantage of the first move as white, as do all openings.

What I honestly think about openings such as the London, Colle and KIA is that they are great for lazy chess players or those players who simply dont have enough time to study chess openings much. There is a LOT more work involved in learning mainline openings and defenses...... if you dont have the time, or the desire, to put that work in its much simpler just to learn a "system".

The problem with a "system" is that once you have been revealed as a player of that system, all the other locals will be armed & ready for you. When I was more active in tournaments, I would always take a walk around the tournament room to check out what other players were playing as an aid in future study. Once someone got a reputation as a system player, they were toast.

 They serve a useful purpose for players a step above beginner (like me). You don't improve as a player if you constantly get killed in the opening and play the rest of the game from behind. I agree that this is partly a function of laziness in learning opening theory, but when your entire game sucks you need to improve all of it! "System" openings allow you to defer delving into opening theory until you're confident that you can do something worthwhile after the opening.

I've played hundreds of games with the KIA against humans and the computer and tried to concentrate on improving my positional play and spotting tactics. Now that I've improved slightly in these respects I'm trying to learn how to play the Catalan and other d4 openings.

EDIT: This does seem to be consistent with Reb's going through chess puberty comment :-)

I am not a fan of the London, but I can understand the pragmatic side of it. I think players generally despise it because it can be a very stodgy game if the white pieces are unambitious.

"I'm so worried about the baggage retreival system they've got at Heath Row"

 I guess it depends on the move order but as a 1.. nf6 player as well I don't find the London to all that much work to get a decent setup.

Having read pretty much all posts to this thread i find it quite weird how easy some people throw down the London.It s not frequent at high level because black can equalise easily..but we are speaking at high level.Let s face it..how many of you who posted here are even above 1900?Are you all eficient in finding solid moves?London is perfectly ok at an intermediate level.

My experience is that the type of players who play the London, or the Bird, the Colle, are lazy players who saw it as a shortcut to studying opening theory.

For the most part - which means that if YOU play this then I'm sure this does not apply to YOU!

Cyrus Lakdawala from San Diego just wrote a book for everyman on this opening. Basically if you are under 2400 any opening is fine! The London is sound and solid, but can get tactical when provoked. I think it is a good choice if it is fun for you to play! If you are having fun then you will play better!

 Even the Bongcloud ? :-)

Played it last night and lost, me and my big mouth.

Never got in the game at all, back to the English.

Under 2400 any opening is fine??  Maybe <1800.  2400 is very high level play.

And that's the problem with the london.  Whether it offers a theoretical advantage or not isn't the issue, that's not (or shouldn't be) relevant to most chess players.  One relevant issue is whether it is fun to play.  My personal opinion is that it's boring and dull, and I'm not alone in thinking that. 

Even though you are quite ahead of me in ratings, I must totally disagree with this statement.  Having been a Bird player, I totally understand where Scaedungen is coming from.  These openings, many times, are branded based on the opinions of players who are in the tops at the time.  At one time, the Petroff was a joke - not now!  The Italian Game at one time was all the rage, but I don't see it as much as I do the Ruy Lopez in 1. e4 GM games.  Even one of your pet openings, the KID, had a bad rep at one time.  Even today, I think it isn't as much of the rage as other 1. d4 defenses.

I rely mainly on the Bird and Dutch for many of my games, and recently have been playing the 3...Nc6 French with good results.  I don't equate it to laziness, as I used to study the openings fanatically.  I relate it to understanding the opening.  I play the Bird because I understand it better than any other opening, and I handle it better than any other opening.

Relating this to the London, if you ask a million people one question, you get a million answers.  The best advice is to ask someone, like Scaedungen, who actually plays the opening, how to use it.  Then you will get a good answer.  If you ask me how to handle a Schevingen, I won't know - I am not experienced with it.  But I understand quite a few of the Bird/Dutch themes, and this helps me get quick wins against players who don't have a clue really what to do after 1. f4.