I made a study of the London System

I'm a big proponent of the London at all levels, and so I decided to take some time (around 2 months of off and on work) to create a fairly comprehensive guide to the London against most of what black could ever throw against it. This study is based on a combination of my years of experience with the London at expert-level; "The Agile London System," a book I can't recommend highly enough; and the opening database and engine, the latter of those two to a lesser extent. It is intended more for the intermediate or higher level London player because, frankly, you don't need to know much more than the set-up to succeed with it at lower levels, which is part of what makes it so great. However, as your opponents get more prepared against the London, this understanding of it falters. There are many ways to end up worse out of the opening in the London by playing on autopilot. Part of what my study tries to show is that the London is much more than a solid, boring opening. Against most of what black can play, white has very sharp attacking possibilities hiding beneath the surface of the position. The extreme flexibility of the London allows white these chances. The study's pretty dense, but I would advise mostly trying to remember concepts over just memorizing lines. While there's a place for the former, especially in important variations, it's against the spirit of the London and also generally unproductive unless you're a strong master or something. This is my first time creating something like this, so I help it'll be helpful in some way to my fellow Londoners... or perhaps just to people looking for the best openings to counter the London?

I have played the London myself for a time, but it made me realize that that's not how I want to experience chess.
It feels so dry, repetitive and ambitionless.
Kramnik on Carlsen using the London: " The London doesnt give you anything, it's all him" And I agree, I dont really see why white would necessarly be better in most lines and the winning percentages also emphasize this
I get why people play the Jobava London, arrising games are more often then not overruled by brute calculation and tactics. Positional chess plays less of a role and the percentages also look pretty good. But the regular London? So out of curiousity, please tell me, why do you play it?

@jesgluckner said in #2:
> I have played the London myself for a time, but it made me realize that that's not how I want to experience chess.
> It feels so dry, repetitive and ambitionless.
> Kramnik on Carlsen using the London: " The London doesnt give you anything, it's all him" And I agree, I dont really see why white would necessarly be better in most lines and the winning percentages also emphasize this
> I get why people play the Jobava London, arrising games are more often then not overruled by brute calculation and tactics. Positional chess plays less of a role and the percentages also look pretty good. But the regular London? So out of curiousity, please tell me, why do you play it?

When I play the London, it is anything but "dry, repetitive and ambitionless" 90+% of the time. Many people who play the London at lower levels only really know the setup and not as much of the rich attacking ideas that can arise against almost every black opening. Also as a result of this black players tend to lack proper preparation against it. In the last OTB tournament I played I was winning out of the opening twice and the other time I got a very dangerous attack that ended up winning. White is well positioned to attack anywhere on the board depending on what black does. Both c4 and e4 are thematic breaks in various lines and pawn storms on both the kingside and queenside are common fare. For the most part, if you want to play ambitiously with the London and you know what you're doing, you won't have any dry games. Unless your opponent plays the KID, then it'll probably be boring (although even then white has some strong attacking possibilities if black misplays the middlegame). White's bishop pair and pawn structure are well-suited to generating play anywhere on the board. The London is such a flexible opening that if it feels dry and repetitive, then you're doing something wrong. I would advise taking a glance through the study, through its course it observes varied sharp, interesting ideas for white.

Thanks for the study! It looks very comprehensive.

@InkyDarkBird said in #5:
> This is advertising...
> But it looks like you put a ton of effort into this study so I guess it's okay.
> Try not to advertise next time, though.
How so? I'm not selling anything or promoting myself; it's the same as showing a game with analysis or whatever, isn't it? I don't ever really post here so I guess I'm not familiar with things here, but I don't really understand your point.

Although you don't sell it your study is too optimistic, like the books and videos about the London and it's not comprehensive.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d6 3.Nf3 3...c6 is at least an odd move. What about c5 or Nbd7?
After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d5 3.Nf3 is not a bad move. It's just another line. White can play 5. Nbd2 instead of 5.c3.

I cover plenty of lines for black that are totally equal; I hardly try to exaggerate in favor of my opening. While I am biased toward the London (as is anybody who has ever written or made anything about their opening), that doesn't change anything at all. And of course the study isn't comprehensive; nothing is. It was, however, the product of hundreds of hours of work and I made every effort to be comprehensive.

1) As far as the Old Indian goes, Nbd7 transposes to the ...c6 line I covered and c5 doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an Old Indian player. I cover c6 specifically because it gives black an interesting chance with ...Qb6, and it otherwise transposes into the normal approach of c6 Qc7 to achieve e5. The final chapter isn't meant to be comprehensive, anyway. Everything I cover in that chapter except for the quick ...e5 line that transposes into the KID is suboptimal.

2) You're not wrong, but it's a suboptimal move order and black can muddy the waters. Delaying Nf3 lets white deal with the threat of Qb6 much more comfortably, as I think I demonstrated (compare the worst lines black can play without Nf3 versus with Nf3 and you'll certainly see it's easier for white to play the opening). But yes, technically white isn't forced into the worse position with Qb6 Bf5. But in order to avoid being worse, white has to be well prepared for unnecessary complications. If white just plays normal moves, as most London players are used to doing, he will end up worse. Nf3 is a bad move in this line unless you know exactly what you're doing, and knowing exactly what you're doing requires you to be good at playing positions that aren't typical of the London, whereas delaying Nf3 allows you to keep things normal within the London. Calling it a mistake is too much, I'll agree on that, but I think it's a very important move order distinction in this line.

@InkyDarkBird said in #9:
> You promote your study by showing the amount of time and effort you spent on it. In addition, you start of your post talking about the study, implying that it is the main focus of this post.
I'm not going to reply to you further past this because you aren't a mod and therefore all you're doing is derailing the thread. If there's an issue, they can step in. But yes, in a post about my study on the London System I'm promoting my study about the London System. Still not sure how it's relevant or how that means that it's "advertising." I'm not selling anything or promoting myself; I'm just putting out this resource to help Londoners and non-Londoners alike with the opening. It's a free resource that anybody can choose to use and I don't gain anything either way. How that's any different from, say, posting a game that you played or even just discussing an opinion you have about chess more generally remains alien to me.