Why do people hate the London System?
Sort:
I had a tournament recently, and I played against a 1900 (I'm 1700). I played the London System, then he just groaned and resigned. Free rating and free point!
Can't they just play KID with Bf5? Most everyday London System players play poorly against it.
Feb 23, 2018
0
#4
I haven't done better than even with it yet, but I've recently tried it out after being a lifetime 1 e4 player. What drew me to the London System is that the setup is a mirror-image of the Slav and Caro-Kann Defense setups, my favorites and where I win more than I lose, but with the London System you have a move-in-hand since you're playing White. Consequently, some of the things you have to slowly prepare to do in the Slav/Caro-Kann you can quicker and more aggressively in the London - like taking 2 moves to get a pawn to c5 at Black, you can often get to the equivalent c4 in one move with the London System in many cases.
Feb 24, 2018
0
#5
Is this true that the 1900-resigned? What did he say? Difficult to believe...
Feb 24, 2018
0
#6
ZBlackwingZ napisał:
I had a tournament recently, and I played against a 1900 (I'm 1700). I played the London System, then he just groaned and resigned. Free rating and free point!
It´s amazing, sound unreal but also in-tune towards the common Black player inner screamings on seeing the London being applied. It does often cause Blacks player aggression and hatred. It is a reaction to kind of power dominance attempt.
I think with London, maybe people should sing a song playing as White: "We are the world.. We are the children.." to soothe the situation.
The New Testament prophesied London System exponents:
"You are not true to yourselves! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven so people cannot go in. You yourselves do not go in, and you stop those who were going in. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, that close the kingdom of heavens before men; and ye enter not, neither suffer other men entering"
Feb 24, 2018
0
#9
There are several reasons why people might hate the London System:
-They don't like London, maybe for the usual reasons why some people rightfully hate big cities.
-They are radicals who oppose the current political and economic system and therefore hate everything with system on its name, including the Colle, the London, and Nimowitsch's book.
Mar 26, 2018
0
#10
now, so many people have turned into London autopilots. Many can't seem to find a system to play against it, so they get annoyed. Personally, I think that it is going to flop within a decade or so. theoreticians will be debating on it and it will come under a dark cloud. Then it will wane at all levels and more mainstream openings will be played rather than the 'dreaded' London.
Mar 26, 2018
0
#11
Morphysrevenges wrote:
I am struggling with the London System. I don't mean that how many of you will read that statement.
I first played the London system about 25 years ago against a junior player in our club that went from about 1000 to a 2000 rating in about 10 minutes it felt like. I remember playing the London system and I didnt really know it well. I just knew d4, Nf3, Bf4, h3, castles, the pawn triangle, etc. and I was rated maybe 1400 at the time. He was rated about the same, but would wind up rated about 1700 about three minutes later. I am not kidding. this kid was on the rise fast.
Anyway, I distinctly remember early in the game, after a number of moves he said to me "don't you want ANY advantage from the opening?" in a frustrated voice. I was not a big fan of the london and did not play if often, but I didn't know what else to do against this up and coming chess star. Bottom line I kicked his butt badly with a (albeit somewhat) passive opening. surprisingly I didn't start to adopt it regularly as a result of that game, but have since played literally just about everything from both sides. I mean everything. sort of on purpose. exspsing yourself to many different openings forces you to learn alot about pawn structures and chess in general.
Decades later I am now trying the London again. (I have played EVERYTHING in between). it is being touted as the lazy man's opening, the opening to play against everything, the opening that does not require lots of study.
So fast forward - I finally found a copy of "Win with the London System" by Gambit publications. people want obscene amounts of money for this book. I am reading through the games and analysis, but my conclusion is that this opening has become such a mainstream way of avoiding mainstream that it has become mainstream. and with it, it has become theoretical. In other words it has become exactly what it is intended to avoid. The book it GREAT. I mean REALLY GREAT. If I sell it on ebay you should gladly buy it. but I am not believing that it is this non-theoretical panacea to avoiding mainstream.
Has anyone else reached this same conclusion? I have a book on the English opening that is smaller and less dense than this great book on the (non-theoretical) London.
I don't know the history of the London.
But I assume it was nammed 200+ years ago because of some London team or a group of strong players from London.
Which is to say... of course there's theory for it lol 
You just didn't realize it all those years ago because you were inexperienced and weren't buying books on the opening.
And yes, it's pretty main stream. A year or two ago it was even a frequent visitor to super-tournament play. I remember Carlsen smashing some 2700 with it.
Mar 26, 2018
0
#12
Kmatta wrote:
now, so many people have turned into London autopilots. Many can't seem to find a system to play against it, so they get annoyed. Personally, I think that it is going to flop within a decade or so. theoreticians will be debating on it and it will come under a dark cloud. Then it will wane at all levels and more mainstream openings will be played rather than the 'dreaded' London.
Ways to play against it are fairly well known, and easy.
I give the two most common ways here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-crush-london-system?page=2
---
I think people hate it because white can choose to play it very passively, and because it more or less guarantees white will get the type of position he wants.
Getting the type of position you want reliably is probably worth 100-200 rating points, so opponents may be frustrated and feel like you're playing above your actual level with it (even though that's not necessarily true).
Mar 26, 2018
0
#13
Morphysrevenges wrote:
Funny. I have played the King's gambit (a very risky opening for both white and black) for many years. I still essay it at my grand old age of 56. I typically kick butt. I would consider it way more theoretical and certainly has been around and subject to scrutiny much longer than the London.
Maybe playing OLD.EDU ( maybe you younger players can figure that one out) is the new school way to go????
Well yeah, openings like that are totally different when it comes to theory.
You're (probably) never going to lose in the London because you forgot what to play on move 18 
Mar 26, 2018
0
#14
Morphysrevenges wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Morphysrevenges wrote:
Funny. I have played the King's gambit (a very risky opening for both white and black) for many years. I still essay it at my grand old age of 56. I typically kick butt. I would consider it way more theoretical and certainly has been around and subject to scrutiny much longer than the London.
Maybe playing OLD.EDU ( maybe you younger players can figure that one out) is the new school way to go????
Well yeah, openings like that are totally different when it comes to theory.
You're (probably) never going to lose in the London because you forgot what to play on move 18
Well wrong again. Go buy "win with the london system" by Johnsen and Kovacevic and you will learn you are wrong.
Meh, not interested in the London, sorry.
I know there are some sharp attacking ideas though. I remember that's how Carlsen crushed that on guy (forgot his name, but he was a strong GM).
Mar 26, 2018
0
#15
But in the king's gambit as white, you'd better know theory, because you can't avoid (AFAIK) the craziness if black goes for it.
As white in the London (AFAIK) black can't force anything sharp.
Mar 26, 2018
0
#16
Morphysrevenges wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Morphysrevenges wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Morphysrevenges wrote:
Funny. I have played the King's gambit (a very risky opening for both white and black) for many years. I still essay it at my grand old age of 56. I typically kick butt. I would consider it way more theoretical and certainly has been around and subject to scrutiny much longer than the London.
Maybe playing OLD.EDU ( maybe you younger players can figure that one out) is the new school way to go????
Well yeah, openings like that are totally different when it comes to theory.
You're (probably) never going to lose in the London because you forgot what to play on move 18
Well wrong again. Go buy "win with the london system" by Johnsen and Kovacevic and you will learn you are wrong.
Meh, not interested in the London, sorry.
I know there are some sharp attacking ideas though. I remember that's how Carlsen crushed that on guy (forgot his name, but he was a strong GM).
Well I am F'ing 56 and I didn't forget his name. What is your lame excuse?
I'm 57, just wait till your next birthday, it's all down hill from 56 lol
Just kidding.
Anyway Carlsen used the London to beat... Tomoshevsky maybe? That's my guess.
My excuse? That's just how my brain works. It'd be nice to remember everything (I guess) but I can't help it if I don't 
Mar 26, 2018
0
#18
Morphysrevenges wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
But in the king's gambit as white, you'd better know theory, because you can't avoid (AFAIK) the craziness if black goes for it.
As white in the London (AFAIK) black can't force anything sharp.
I will take ANYONE on in the King's gambit. And I am an (really) old fart. bring it on dudes!
I know a guy like that. He's 60 or 70, and he plays gambits all the time.
I'm more of a wimp than that guy. I admire his fighting spirit, and he gives me hope that I can play whatever I want even as I get older.
Mar 27, 2018
0
#19
I agree with GMtheforce. I really enjoy playing against the London. Not because it is a bad opening, I like to play against it because the players who play the London don't use their brain when playing it.
They play Bf4, h3, Bh2 in every game regardless of the opponent's moves.
Sometimes c4 is necessary but they don't see this possibility because the LS-move order is engraved in their brains.
On lower levels LS stands for LAZY SYSTEM.
They learn all the moves by heart but don't understand a thing.
It's funny how London System players do the same thing they accuse the "theory freaks" of.
?