I once heard the Torre Attack described as The Old Man’s Bad Habit (Aagaard), and no less a tribute can be paid to the London…
“One problem is that this is actually a pretty good opening”
— Christof Sielecki
The original idea of the London System was as an Anti-KID weapon in the tournament in our capital in 1922, fighting for the control of central dark squares.
Capablanca later played a game that was a good advert for it against Yates in 1924, where again dark square dominance was a theme.
And Frank Marshall used it in his own style, playing for mate in a way that may later have inspired Mark Hebden:
After this initial enthusiasm, the trail goes cold for a while, warming up with the intervention of David Bronstein. Black can hope to make a point about the early development of the Bishop by attacking b2. Sometimes White plays it as a gambit, sometimes White defends with Qc1/Qc2, sometimes White blocks with Qb3, when the Queens are likely to be swapped. One thing that I got out of looking at London games by Bronstein and others is the paradoxical power of doubled pawns. Sometimes Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 (or the same with a swap on b3) showed the doubled pawns as a weakness, but sometimes the open a-file and chances to break twice with the b-pawn proved stronger. The creative Bronstein can be found on both sides of the argument.
The London System has a number of advantages for the club player.
- White’s pieces tend to come to the same sorts of squares each game,
- it concentrates on some fairly simple aims in the opening (fast, solid development, central occupation) and
- there isn’t much theory on it because there are no sharp lines.
To some extent, these advantages are all also disadvantages!
- White’s pieces tend to come to the same sorts of squares each game, so it should be easy to predict and counter.
- It concentrates on some fairly simple aims in the opening (fast, solid develoopment, central occupation) which can be met happily with the same sorts of strategy.
- There isn’t much theory on it because there are no sharp lines, which means Black shouldn’t struggle either to find a decent line against it nor to equalise.
So much, so general. In practice, passive or too-simple play by Black can lead to trouble, and, with a space or development advantage, White can attack happily on either side of the board. I’ve lost and struggled against the London throughout my chess career, and watched Peter Lane (formerly of this parish) have some real walk-throughs against strong players with this system. Repertoire books (Soltis 1988, Johanssen & Kovacevic 2009) do give unrealistic numbers of White wins (2/40 losses in Soltis) but they also give you some recipes about how to play, and a player with a plan will usually beat a player without one. It all depends on what ideas you can bring to the game. Magnus Carlsen brings more to a game than most, and he can beat top Grandmasters with the London.
John Cox had a superb introduction to ‘Dealing with d4 Deviations’:
I begged Everyman Chess to let me write this book. All my chess-playing life I have had a terrible record against these feeble variants, as I saw them. The final straw was being utterly slaughtered by Richard Pert in a London league match in the 4 e3 line in Chapter 9. I wanted the incentive to study them and give myself the opportunity to put this right. And for me, it’s worked splendidly. I believe I have really learned something about these systems, and if I am able to pass on to the reader the confidence I have now gained myself, then the job will have been well done.
…I think it’s worth examining why I used to do so badly against these systems. Dealing with these openings successfully is a matter of psychological approach among other things – it’s not by chance that every work from Black’s point of view called them ‘annoying’ or some synonym. I set out what I now feel were my main failings in this area in the hope others might recognize some of theirs and be inspired to remedy them at less cost in points than I managed.
1) The most obvious point – I didn’t actually have a repertoire at all against, say, the Colle. You just play chess, right? Develop the pieces and equalize.
I remember Grandmaster Vlatko Kovacevic playing the Colle against me back before databases. I had no idea this was his customary weapon of mass destruction, and I thought I must have sat down at the wrong board. A GM playing 3 e3??With that attitude, it won’t surprise you to learn I got torched on the kingside around about move 25. Only the fact that the game was played in a comparatively minor event has saved me from appearing in every Colle book since on the wrong end of a classic White crush. Time has mercifully obscured the details, but I know I went …d5 and …c5. Pretty soon a knight appeared on e5 and I didn’t seem to be able to shift it. Shortly after that, either the h- or the g-pawn arrived on the premises. Then came Re3, Qh5, and the next thing I knew I was looking like something out of 1001 Winning Chess Combinations. That wasn’t the only such debacle, either; every time my opponent played one of these vile things I was behind on the clock as I worked on my conception of the wheel, and just as you’d expect some of my wheels came out square. Hopefully the remedy to this is obvious – you hold it in your hands.
2) I was bored by these openings: I didn’t consider them interesting.
3) Not only did I not consider them interesting, I didn’t consider them dangerous.
4) A less obvious point, this: to combat these openings successfully requires a good knowledge of many structures. A good chess education, in fact.
5) I didn’t experience the adrenalin surge I got defending ‘my’ openings.
6) Lastly, I wasn’t playing set-ups I was happy and had experience with.
John Cox
And a little tribute to England’s most notable exponent of the system:
It personally brings back some memories of Michael Franklin at some quickplays in London I used to play at. A very strong player, and a very frustrating player to play against. Imagine fantastic quality Staunton sets, and that horrid London system bishop cutting across the diagonal, just waiting with its little cutesy pigeon hole on h2 made by the h3 move, to puncture the opponents pawn structure etc – and kill all the enthusiasm of the up and coming young players.
If you imagine Michael Franklin as a kind of chess Dracula, sucking all the enthusiasm and counterplay out of the position and his opponents, you begin to feel the nature of the opening and the people that really excel at using it. And yes even with a minority attack, those sorts of players will just wait to pounce on any weaknesses you dare create on the Queenside. They literally look forward to you entertaining them trying to attack them anywhere waiting to pounce on weaknesses created …
Tryfon Gavriel
Let’s look at some specific lines.
London main lines with 1.d4 d5
Symmetrical Variation
Nunn’s Chess Openings gives the extremely unimpressive variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 Bd6 7.Bxd6 Qxd6…
but putting a bit of pawn pressure on the centre with 4.c4 helps a lot. Conversely, Black may do best by playing an early …c5 instead of copying White.
Two Knights Variation
This was reckoned to be the perfect defence against the London because of the line
…
Now if Qc2 Bf5! Qxf5? Qxb2!
So, rather than suffer the indignity of Qc2 Bf5! Qc1, White might take on b6. After 9.Na3 Black should probably keep the Knight out of b5 with 9…Ra5, but if I had this with Black I would be strongly tempted by 9…Rxa3!?
Tony Miles then started introducing the London with 2.Bf4.
Now if Black tries the same idea, there may be trouble:
So, J/K rolled out a repertoire book called Win with the London System, which heavily featured 2.Bf4, and it is in this form that it has become most popular recently.
However, Eric Prie wrote a scathing review of this book, saying it disregards or under-emphasises the best lines for Black.
https://www.chesspublishing.com/content/8/feb06.htm
Eric claims full equality for Black in several lines:
Eric declares the early …c5 system a complete solution for Black.
(Black can even try a very early …c5 with 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5!? to which some players have replied in the spirit of the Albin Counter-Gambit with 3.e4!?, but I’m by no means sure who has more to fear there.)
All-purpose System
Straightforward solid development ought to be OK but, after an early …e6, White can sometimes whip out an attack on the King’s-side, using e5 to hold down the Black position. It can look like an improved Stonewall Attack!
I couldn’t find Kovacevic-Cox but it may have looked and felt a bit like that game…
Cox and others recommend equalising with 6…Bd6, as Michael Adams likes to do. In theory, White should welcome exchanging Black’s better Bishop, but has to waste a move with either Bxd6 or Bg3 or suffer a muddling of the pawns on f4. Ne5 sometimes works, blocking the exchange, but a bit of analysis suggested 7.Ne5 is not great now.
In general, White won’t mind …Bxg3 or even…Nxg3, when hxg3 opens the h-file for a Rook on h1, but after castling, will want to avoid the doubled pawns by a preliminary h2-h3.
But White found a fabulous idea in the main line:
So, avoid that for sure!
Another trap:
J/K give
and then suggest
(11. Qg4 O-O 12. f4 Nf6 13. Qf3 Ne7 14. Bd3 Qb6 15. Rb1 +=)
This is typical of repertoire books: a failry long line is given as += without suggesting where Black might have gone wrong. I don’t dispute the final +=, but if you want to play this for Black, you can certainly try the same plans as in the game: 12…a6 and then either 13…f5 stopping White’s f-pawn or 13…b5 starting queenside play, or both. The authors do not suggest that these ideas were mistaken nor give any argument for getting the Queen in front of the b-pawn with …Qb6. There are so many moves and variations in that book, but you come away thinking that fewer moves and more thinking would have made a much better book! But maybe not one so easy to produce.
You can abandon all finesse with Aagaard and Lund’s 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Bd6, which they consider easily equal. Instead, 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 e6 3.e3 Bd6 4.Bxd6 Qxd6 5.Qg4!? is a try for advantage, perhaps the only one.
London lines against Indian systems
London vs Grunfeld
Only as I was driving over, thinking through how to structure this talk, I realised I had omitted looking at the Grunfeld set-up. Let me repair my omission here:
London vs King’s Indian
This is where we came in. I have a suspicion that going for …e5, as recommended by Gallagher, plays into White’s hands a little, while …c5, as recommended by Dembo, is less easy for White to play against. But I expect both should equalise; White’s system is too indirect.
London vs Modern
I think White is well-advised to try a different move order here. Black can get in …e5 quickly and easily, and other attempts by White are not convincing.
London vs …e6.
“It is more pleasant to play Bf4 once Black has played e6”. – Magnus Carlsen.
Black has a fair choice of systems here
Sielicki recommends going for a Hedgehog set-up against the London with …e6 and …d6.
…
Miserable, but while I've seen 6.Nc4 given as += I expect 6...cxd4 7. exd4 d6 may be perfectly playable.
In the game, 7...Bd6 8.Bb5+ Kf8 is more defensible.
Eric Prie suggests, contra Carlsen, that 1.d4 e6 2.Bf4 is not so threatening for Black, as 2...c5 and 3...Qb6 is not convenient to meet.
Another trap:
London vs Dutch
Soltis disparages White's chances, as Black is well-placed to play ...e5, while J/K concede that Black is fine after
The Stonewall Dutch is unattractive after Bf4 ...
...but the Leningrad can be essayed. Before you see Nf3, watch out for ideas of h4 by White.
Move orders
We have learned that 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 may be improved by 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4.
But after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3, 2...d5! May give White a problem
And is 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 too early to show White's hand?
White can try to hand back the problem with
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c3!?
...hoping that Black might allow a decent version of the London or perhaps the Torre. Cox and Ladkawala each discuss this move order; the Rowson-Haslinger game may be a pain for Black but there's nothing wrong with 5...Nf6 first and then 6...Bd6
Transpositions
The transpositions that I know about and I think are the most important are:
Queen's Gambit Declined Blackburne Variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Be7 5.c4 O-O 6.Nc3
is the same as
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Bf4 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.c4
Queen's Gambit Slav Defence Exchange Variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc6
is the same as
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Nc6
Caro-Kann Defence Exchange Variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 Nc6
is the same as
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bf4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6
Queen's Indian Miles Variation
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 b6 4.c4
is the same as
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Bf4
And I expect with some cooperation on both sides, we could get to the Bf4 lines against the Benoni.
Bibliography
WATTS/MAROCZY (ed. Regis) The International Chess Tournament London 1922
SOLTIS Winning with the London System
JOHANSSEN et al. Win with the London System
LADKAWALA The London System Move by Move
NUNN et al. Nunn's Chess Openings
AAGAARD & LUND Defending 1.d4
COX Dealing with 1.d4 Deviations
GALLAGHER Beating the Anti-King's-Indians
DEMBO Fighting the Anti-King's-Indians
BOROS Bust the London System! | Strategy Session https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6Im1MVh_o
SIELECKI Fight the London System with Black Pt 3 - ...Nf6 e6 Setups (Nimzo, Queens Indian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YARzPWgDSQ (featuring the 'headshock')
Also on YouTube: Simon Williams has posted some summaries of chapters from his DVD and an update on developments since the DVD came out.