|
|
|
Topic: The London System - why I will play this...
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
The London System
The long answer is: I will play the London System sometimes because I risk nothing and gain everything, and in my opinion it is the perfect opening to teach students the fundamentals of the game while allowing them to discover through their own games that getting in a early c4 is of great value, leading them into a more aggressive opening, this discovery is made with understanding rather than just being told to make these types of moves. Some coaches use different openings to achieve the same goal however, the result is the same.
Playing this type of opening allows me a chance to get a feel for the player’s strengths and weaknesses, does the player like tactics and does he or she know how to play a positional game (i.e. pawns). The opening is not suited to someone who wants to obtain and keep the opening advantage; it is more of a (wait and see) opening however, if you give me the advantage in the opening I will gratefully accept. The opening allows you to get to a middle game without to much thought, where you can start your heavy thinking. Think of this opening as a tool to use when you are playing someone you do not know, and you want to gather information about his or her playing abilities.
To be fair, Capablanca, Reti, Alekhine, Kamsky, Tony Miles and Kasparov played this opening in their careers so it can not be all bad.
|
|
|
Very strange indeed, No, not the fact that you advocate a solid, but let us be honest, boring opening. After all we each have our own style when playing chess, but strange that you advertise in the forum but do not appear to actually be playing any games.
IMHO the Queen Pawn London System is a sound but robotic and uninteresting opening, maybe useful for an experienced player, who is frightened of their opponents' preparation: BUT completely inappropriate for students new to the game
However Chess is a great game with enough facets to provide everyone with opportunities to play in the style best suited to their talents, so as long as you enjoy this system, carry on and good luck
|
|
|
What some finds boring other finds fun!..There are always players who want to play safe and sound and like openings like this. Many Early Bf4 system is hard to crack, at least I dont like to play as black against this system, but no need to be afraid of it anyhow. This is not more boring than many others opening that are popular as for instance the Closed system in the Sicilian defence.
This column by Anyone4 is okay and interesting that way. 
|
|
|
Hi Trefor
To answer your first question I really don’t have time to play chess on any site other than my own chess site, so I try to contribute in other ways. You may consider the London system to be robotic and boring but I don’t believe this opening is inappropriate for new players. When I used to teach chess I always tried to teach practical chess not perfect chess.
I have had similar discussions on this type of issue before, so I won’t get into to much detail but I would like you to consider the follow statement: What part of the game should you study first? Most players, coaches and teachers will say the end game. In general terms this is the correct answer however, if a player never gets to an end game and gets totally frustrated because he is always beaten (or lost) long before the end game does it make sense to study that part of the game so early in a player’s chess life.
Some argue that you should study open games and then positional games, while some state don’t study openings at all just study tactics and follow general opening principles.
The London system can be taught in 30 minutes, a sold pawn formation is created and the concept of pawn breaks on the c and e file is very simple to understand. Now flip the board around (black side) we have, the Caro Kann and the Slav etc. Rooks on open files, knights and bishops developed to natural squares and King Safety (castling) is all simple and straight forward.
As a player advances he starts to realize and recognize the problems associated with the London system but can now, based on his experience move into a Queen Gambit or Tromposky etc, with little or no effort.
Another small point to ponder, most people or players work for a living and go to their 9 to 5 jobs (they all do a great job) and then go home to their houses, family and kids etc. Only a small number of us risk everything (entrepreneurs) to go for that something extra (the brass ring). So in life most people are cautious and careful. So when you play chess, should you not follow a pattern familiar and comfortable, after all in all honestly how many players consider themselves as a (Tal - entrepreneur) in the chess world, most players who are honest consider themselves to be a (Karpov – safe and solid).
Why do we admire and respect players like Tal, because, they represent what we are not, but dream to be!
Human nature can not be thrown out the window just because you sitting at a chess board.
Thanks
|
|
|
I've always found the best way to get in an early c4 is to follow 1.d4 with 2.c4 instead of 2.Nf3 and c3. ;-)
Actually, there's a serious point to this. In an OTB tournament game not too long ago, I won a pawn in the opening because my opponent was so out of practice in the 1.d4 2.c4 systems -- he remarked that, these days, almost everyone plays the Colle or London system.
|
|
|
|
|
