Is London System Good?
Sort:
i was curious
Yes, it is good. It has been played at top level.
Yes, it has been played in the WCC and it's kinda solid
indeed. It's just a trend for lazy players. It's been known for a long time but remained in obscurity til recent years. It's "good" by concensus, but to me...no. In a practical sense. There's soo much more riches in other variations. Mainlines. Without studying or playing these, you're not getting the full benefit if you just play this. And it's not winning. Only against unprepared players. Against other "lazy" players. Top players, though yes they can win with it against other top players...you got to remember those defeated have resources to draw or even win the next time the same opponents play.
najdorf96 wrote:
indeed. It's just a trend for lazy players. It's been known for a long time but remained in obscurity til recent years. It's "good" by concensus, but to me...no. In a practical sense. There's soo much more riches in other variations. Mainlines. Without studying or playing these, you're not getting the full benefit if you just play this. And it's not winning. Only against unprepared players. Against other "lazy" players. Top players, though yes they can win with it against other top players...you got to remember those defeated have resources to draw or even win the next time the same opponents play.
Dude, no opening is winning. Chess is almost certainly a draw with best play.
And let's not talk about you calling top players "lazy" just because you don't like this particular opening.
magipi wrote:
najdorf96 wrote:
indeed. It's just a trend for lazy players. It's been known for a long time but remained in obscurity til recent years. It's "good" by concensus, but to me...no. In a practical sense. There's soo much more riches in other variations. Mainlines. Without studying or playing these, you're not getting the full benefit if you just play this. And it's not winning. Only against unprepared players. Against other "lazy" players.
Top players, though yes they can win with it against other top players...you got to remember those defeated have resources to draw or even win the next time the same opponents play.
Let's not talk about you calling top players "lazy" just because you don't like this particular opening.
He didn't say that.
najdorf96 wrote:
And it's not winning. Only against unprepared players.
Very true. Like in the following "must win" situation where the patzer playing Black was caught unprepared... 
I am thrilled seeing the London. I score >50% against it.
Yes.
thanks Ethan. I appreciate that.
indeed @#7 (Maze) I was just generalizing with "us" (myself included) type players~NOT about Top Players, in referring to 'who' I'm talking about in what you quoted. Please reread what I had said about Top Players. To be honest, I've NEVER LOST to a London. Against Ding, I think yeah he could obliberate me! But get real, unless you're a IM or above, no one is beating ME with a London.
(oh, and I don't appreciate the sarcasm when misquoting me @Mazetoskylo try reading before pleading please)
indeed, last thing... it's not that I don't "like" the Opening...your very statement validates what I said. "It's not winning". Drawish? Cool. That's not "winning", right? ✌🏼
(that was directed @magipipi)
(sorry magipi)
#10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Actually on social networks we don't know who we're talking to and there are also trolls or simply addicted people who have developed bad habits so there's no point in justifying ourself if the guys make attack strawmen or make roundabout messages in order to argumentum ad personam.
As amateur players we give our opinion without pretending to be the Truth and to take our readers for sheeps incapable of having a critical mind. If our opinion doesn't liked it is not our problem.
For the topic yes it's sure that the London system is good or enough good because notably super GMs play it and can win against strong players.