Hello everyone,
I have read many times that many players deem the London System to be boring.
As a London Player myself, I am confused as to why that is.
Any enlightenment is very much appreciated.
It's not boring. It sets you up with a generally simple to navigate position on move 10. Magnus Carlsen and other top GMs have played it in top level games too, so I would not consider it boring at all.
It is boring. Very very boring. It is a system filled with tedium and inertia and the only way any interest can be injected into it at all is if Black tries very very hard.
It's like a Caro Kann for White.
If you are young and play the LS - what do you play when you are old?
Oh boy, I really like the way this debate is going. Until about this time last year I didn't really play The London until Ginger GM went over it and then Levy played black against it in some of his videos, then I looked into Gata Kamsky playing it. And then the very next day, I was playing in a Chess 960 tournament in Zen Mode and after one of the games it turns out I was beaten by none other than GM Gata Kamsky. It was a sign from the simulation HQ to continue to play the London. However the more people rant or rave about it, the more it gets played and it is harder to win games. And I suppose I am perpetuating that now, by talking about The London. There is no winning here. I'll stop.
One last ride for the late comers:
youtu.be/Qy-JX7hoy-gIt is boring because there are no sharp tactics, threats or sacrifices in the first dozen moves. White is just setting up a solid position with routine moves. To me, by definition, that is boring.
I'm not saying it's bad. If you want to play that way, it's your right. One reason we hate it: it works. It's just a dreary way to play.
For me it takes all the pleasure out of the game. I want to play chess from move 2, not get my pieces set up on standard squares and then start playing chess.
#7 Then you should try Bongcloud. Gets your king right in the game from move 2.
I think the disappointment has to do with how the opening challenges you as the defender. When you face e4 you know you aren't going to face some system opening and the games tend to be exciting. But it does feel like half the time someone plays d4 it's because they want to play the London, the Colle, Zukertort, some kind of quick fianchetto, etc.. where the player as white disregards everything you're doing and drifts into balanced equality. It's really fun to face an ambitious d4 player, as rare as they are these days. Every move out of the opening is interactive and critical, because when you get crushed by a d4 player they usually have many positional factors going for them (ie; central control), not a material advantage like is often the case when an e4 player crushes you. Some London players go for a hacky attack and can kind of pull it off, but I think by and large when you choose a generic opening the rest of the game lacks inspiration as well. Even the attacks feel like they're by-the-book. Of course you can play whatever you want. I do think the London gets the most hate because it's simply the most popular of all the system openings. If you want to play a system opening it might be worth just picking one that is less popular so at least people won't be all booked up on how they're going to face you. The Trompowsky is an interesting (and annoying!) non-standard way to play, for example, and gets way less attention.
