Bishop’s Opening, and the Modern treatments of the Giuoco Piano
and Two Knight’s Opening.

Bibliography

Bishop’s Opening, Tim Harding [Chess Player]

Simple Chess, Michael Stean [Faber]

Secrets of Grandmaster Play, Nunn and
Griffiths [Batsford]

The Open Game in Practice, Anatoly
Karpov [Batsford]

Winning with Bishop’s Opening, Gary Lane
[Batsford]

Introduction

Let us open 1. e4 and after 1…e5, 2.
Nf3

All square?

As many juniors already know, we can continue with moves like
Bc4, d3, Nc3 and Be3/Bg5 followed by
O-O, White has achieved an easy development. However, this
system of development puts no pressure on Black whatsoever, and
Black’s only task is to keep up with White’s development. For
example, after 2. Nf3 Black might reply 2…Nc6,
then after 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6
(Giuoco Pianissimo) we can try 6. Be3
Bb6! when Black has an easy game, while after 6.
O-O Bg4! White may even feel that the King has been
committed too soon (7. h3 h5!?). 6.
Bg5 may give Black a few ways of going wrong but basically
the impression is that this game with Knights on their natural
squares of c3 and f3 is not a difficult system for Black to
equalise against because Black can develop easily.

Going for d2-d4?

In order to put early pressure on Black, White cannot use the
pieces alone. Plan A must include development by d2-d4 at some
point. This will put pressure on the Black Pawn at e5 and give a
few more possibilities for both sides.

  The immediate 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 leads
to release of central tension and denies White the opportunity of
ever achieving a ‘perfect’ centre with Pawns on e4 and d4. This is
a perfectly reasonable opening (Scotch Game), but perhaps
we can do better:

Preparing d2-d4 with c2-c3

Supporting the d4 Pawn with c2-c3 seems a good idea, so that
…e5xd4 can be met with c3xd4. Then our Knight on b1 could go to
c3 anyway. However, 3. c3 (Ponziani’s
opening) has been thought for a long while to offer White
little: it is a well-motivated move but for the moment does not
restrict Black at all. Black can make an immediate nuisance by
either 3…Nf6 or perhaps even
3…d5, when the natural 4.exd5
Qxd5 cannot be met by tempo-gaining 5.Nc3.

The old Italian Game with c2-c3

There can be little objection to the Italianate 3.
Bc4, which retricts …d5, enables castling by White, and
after 3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)
4.c3! is an excellent way to proceed, since after
the spoiling attempt 4…Nf6, 5.d4! can follow in
any event. These are well-known lines, which perhaps do not offer
White much more than equality in theory, but in practice usually
lead to an open game where Black has lots of chances to go wrong.
This old-fashioned Italian Game, concentrating on fast development
and attacking play, is a great choice for your first chess opening
system.

Euwe Max – Van Mindeno H [C54], It “AVRO”,
Netherlands, 1927

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 0-0 11.Rxe4 Ne7 12.d6 cxd6
13.Qxd6 Nf5 14.Qd5 d6 15.Bg5 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 Qxg5 17.Qxf7+
1-0

  However, this is not the way most folk play the opening
these days.

  If there is a problem with 3. Bc4 it is
3…Nf6 (Two Knights’ Defence), which
does not allow us to play 4. c3/5. d4. 4. d4!?
(the Max Lange Attack) can be tried as a reply, but this
again detracts from the goal of setting up Pawns on d4 and e4.

Garcia C – Taulbut Shaun M It active,
1982

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6.
Re1 d5 7. Nc3 dxc4 8. Rxe4+ Be7 9. Nxd4 f5 10. Bh6 Kf7 11. Qh5+ g6
12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. h4 Be6 15. Rxe6 1-0

  Again, the play is open and unclear, which is fine for
those with an adventurous spirit and a good memory (for this line
is very well researched), but we may prefer to avoid this.

Getting to d4 in two moves: the modern
Italian Game

However, if after 3…Nf6, 4. d3 seems an
admission of failure, this may be only a temporary setback. 4. d3
may be followed by protecting the e-Pawn (with Nbd2, or castling
and Re1), and then we can play c2-c3 and d3-d4 as originally
planned. This slightly delayed occupation of the centre may be
stronger than doing so immediately, because it is more solid.

  The most important test in this position is, of course,
the simple 4…d5: if this equalises then White
will have to try something else. In fact, it seems that after
5. exd4 Nxd4 6. O-O and 7. Re1 Black can
experience some difficulty defending the e-Pawn. So this idea of
d3, c3 and only later d4 seems quite playable.

  Also, after 3…Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3! we
enter similar lines. The main variations of the Giuoco Piano with
5. d4 are well-explored and well-known, so your opponent may
equalise without much thought if they know the book lines, whereas
these lines with d3 are less familiar and offer more scope for
original play.

  In any event, the system with c3 and d3 may be more
interesting than a Four Knights’ type of system with Nc3 and d3.
The Queen’s Knight can play first to d2, which looks a little slow,
but, because the centre is solid, it can then plan grand tours like
Nd2-c4-e3-d5 or Nd2-f1-g3-f5, or some other combination like
Nd2-f1-e3. If a general King’s-side push is being considered, once
the King’s Knight on f3 moves, the Queen’s Knight can pop around
from d2 to f3.

  There has been much Grandmaster interest in this
apparently slow style of playing these old openings. What can Black
do in response to this plan?

Plans for the d-Pawn for both sides in the
modern Italian Game

We have considered four central formations for White above:

d3 only (with Nc3), which in itself may be too
slow

d4 only, which in itself may be too early

c3 and d4, which may be vulnerable to …Nf6

d3 and c3 with d4 later, which may be the best plan
so far

  Black of course has all these plans available from the
other side:

…d6 and …Nc6

…d5 only

…c6 and …d5

…d6 and …c6 (with maybe …d5 later)

  Because Black may be trying only to equalise, lack of
aggression in these different plans may be no great drawback.

  White is going to stick the King’s Bishop on c4, while
Black has yet to commit it to a square: …Bc5 is natural, …Be7
is solid, and some folk have tried it on g7.

  This combination of different possible plans by White and
by Black is rather interesting. It is this strategic complexity and
relatively slow unfolding of plans which has led to a growth of
interest in these lines, together with a re-appraisal of some old
variations.

The modern Italian Game and the Bishop’s
Opening

A point of order: I have introduced these lines from a move order
with 2. Nf3. But it may be interesting to play 2.
Bc4 instead: the Bishop’s Opening. After 2. Bc4
we can reach the same lines after either 2…Nf6 3. d3 Nc6
4. Nf3 or 2…Nc6 3. Nf3 or
2…Nc6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3. Are there advantages to
playing 2. Bc4 instead of 2. Nf3? In the early
1980s when interest was growing in 2. Bc4, Petroff’s
Defence (the reply 2…Nf6 to 2.
Nf3) was proving to be a good equalising try for Black at
all levels of chess. The Bishop’s Opening move order obviously
avoids this defence, and one or two others besides (like
Philidor’s Defence and the Latvian Gambit). So,
yes, there may be practical advantages in starting out with 2. Bc4.

  The growth of interest in Bishop’s Opening actually began
with Bent Larsen’s researches in the 1960s. [He wanted to get into
a line of the Vienna Opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.
Bc4 Nc6 4. d3 without encouraging the wild 3…Nxe4 4.
Qh5, so introduced the line with 2. Bc4.] He
discovered, amongst other things, that after 1. e4 e5 2.
Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 Black has no easy time of it. The other
theoretical development, published in a little Tim Harding book,
was a series of correspondence games by Koch in which he showed
that the supposed equalising line 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3
c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7
led to a position in which, hypermodern style, Black was left
defending an overambitious centre against strong pressure from
White’s minor pieces.

  There are old-fashioned ‘Italian’ and gambit approaches
to Bishop’s Opening – for example, White can essay the
Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3!?] or
the Urusoff Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4!?], both of
which have yet to be refuted and the latter actually claimed a
scalp of the young Karpov. But here I am interested mostly in the
modern treatments.

The Bishop’s Opening and the Ruy
Lopez

Before getting stuck into the details, there is another general
point to consider: the strategically heavyweight lines of the
Ruy Lopez are generally reckoned to be one of the most
important battle-grounds in chess, being complex and offering White
good chances to play for an advantage, and, indeed, giving both
sides chances to win. These positions in fact have parallels in the
modern lines of the Bishop’s opening. For example, the main lines
of the Ruy Lopez include the old Tchigorin Defence:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7
6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7
[Kasparov – Donchenko, 1976]

  and the modern Breyer system:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7
6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d3 Nbd7 [Vasiukov –
Karpov, 1971]

  Now, positions similar to these can readily be reached
through Bishop’s opening: after:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O
O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 h6 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. Re1 Bf8 10. Nf1 Na5 11. Bc2
c5 [Kosten-Cooper, 1988]

  …we have a formation similar to the Tchigorin; to find
a parallel system to the Breyer we can try:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6
6. c3 Nbd7.

  These parallels help explain the GM interest in the old
Bishop’s opening. The differences between the parallel lines lie
principally in White’s more restricted route for the Bishop:
Bf1-c4-b3-c2 rather than Bf1-b5-a4-b3-c2 in the Ruy Lopez, chased
by Black’s a- and b-Pawns. Whether these advances represent
Queen’s-side counterplay more than Queen’s-side weaknesses has yet
to be resolved!

Pawn formations in Bishop’s opening

What is going on strategically in Bishop’s Opening types of
positions? You will find layers of tactical details (like the
attack on f7) when you look at master games in this opening, which
can obscure what is going on underneath the surface. The easiest
way to think about the plans in different lines is to consider is
the Pawn formations. If White succeeds in playing d3, c3 and d4 we
create a tense pawn formation (a), in which the tension can be
resolved in a number of ways. Before White can do this, it is
possible for Black to set up such a formation, so we have all the
possibilities available to both sides. The possibilities of a quick
shift to another formation will be better handled by the side with
the more advanced and more flexible development.

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy
Lopez)

The tension may even be added to by Black playing …c5, analogous
to the Tchigorin line. In the long term, the adjacent central Pawns
should confer a space advantage, so exchanges should be avoided by
the side trying to maintain them.

Black may resolve the tension by playing
…e5xd4 (c3xd4) which results in an unbalanced position where
White has an extra central Pawn (b).

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP
unopposed

These adjacent Pawns in a more open position confer a bigger
advantage but in a more open position may be more vulnerable to
attack e.g. along the e-file.

White may resolve the tension in the
first formation, by playing either d4-d5 (giving a closed centre
(c) with an advanced d-Pawn), or by playing d4xe5 (…d6xe5) with a
balanced, semi-open KP centre (d).

(c) Closed centre with advanced
d-Pawn.

The advanced d-Pawn gives a space advantage, particularly on the
Queen’s-side. To play for a win the c-Pawn and maybe b-Pawn should
be advanced, to sieze more space and perhaps open lines on that
side. The opponent may consider an advance of the f-Pawn to
undermine the d-Pawn and counter-attack on the King’s-side.

(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

This is a very common formation in KP openings. If neither side can
achieve a sharp advance of the f-Pawn, play will be dominated by
piece play on either wing. There are natural posts for Knights on
d5 and f5 (d4 and f4 for Black), and if Black’s c-Pawn has pushed
to c5 earlier, the d5 point is even more attractive. Control of the
d-file is a good idea but can usually be countered, resulting in
exchanges. Occupation of the mutual outposts f5 and f4 by Knights
is less straightforward to counter, and while your opponent is
sorting out that threat, it may be that you can get the d-file
then.

  If Black anticipates the d3-d4 advance with …d7-d5,
after e4xd5 and …Nf6xd5 we have a semi-open unbalanced KP centre
(e), typical of the Steinitz variation of the Ruy Lopez with
colours reversed.

(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

The e-Pawn confers a space advantage and attacking prospects on the
King’s-side, which may be added to by f2-f4. The e-Pawn is exposed
on the half-open file, and should be restrained (e.g. by …Re8)
from breaking open lines for the attack by e4-e5. Black’s break
…d6-d5 is a natural plan to dissolve the centre.

  If neither side ventures d4/…d5, then we have a
balanced, closed KP centre (f).

(f) balanced, closed KP centre

Unless one side or the other goes for a pawn break we get a slow
game where play on the wings is dominant: on the Queen’s-side we
may see a pawn rush, but on the King’s-side we are more likely to
see more modest plans like the occupation of f5 or f4 by a Knight.

  The flexibility of the Bishop’s Opening is such that you
can end up playing any of these Pawn formations, and playing each
side of the unbalanced ones [a,b,c and e] as either White or Black!
Interestingly, White often ends up playing against a Black
preponderance in the centre. Let’s see:

Variations with (a) Closed KP centre,
Tension form (Ruy Lopez)

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 Bb6 5. d4 Qe7 6. O-O
d6 [closed Giuoco Piano]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3
Bd6 [Paulsen’s Defence with …d5]

Variations with (b) Double Pawn centre, KP
unopposed

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. d4 exd4 12.
cxd4 Ba7 [Speelman-Yusupov, 1989/90]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6
6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. exd5 cxd5
[Nunn-Murey, 1982]

Variations with (c) Closed centre with
advanced d-Pawn.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.Bb3
Be6 8.Bc2 h6 9.Re1 Nbd7 10.Nbd2 Qc7 11.d4 Rfe8 12.h3 Nf8 13.c4 Ng6
14.d5 [Kasparov – Georgadze,1979]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6
6. Nc3 d4 [Nunn-Kortchnoi, 1981]

Variations with (d) Balanced, semi-open KP
centre

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 d5?! 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Qe2 dxe4 10. dxe4
[Kosten-Cooper, 1989]

Variations with (e) Semi-open unbalanced KP
centre.

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5
[Larsen-Berger, 1964]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6
6. h3 Nbd7 7. a4 O-O 8. Re1 Nc5 9. Nc3 h6 10. d4 exd4 11.
Nxd4 [Vogt-Tseshkovsky, 1981]

Variations with (f) balanced, closed KP
centre

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d6 [Paulsen’s
Defence with …d6]

This flexibility and variety is the final clue to understanding the
GM interest in the old Bishop’s opening – because it can be
interpreted in a fully modern way by both sides.

  [Examples of pawn formations]

Variations of Bishop’s Opening.

After

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4

  Black can adopt a variety of systems. The Black King’s
Knight nearly always goes to f6, so assume 2…Nf6
will be played. White responds 3. d3 to play in
the modern style. Now Black has a choice:

3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)
3…Nc6 (Two Knight’s Defence)
3…c6 (Paulsen’s Defence to the Bishop’s
Opening)

3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

3…Bc5 4. Nf3 usually transposes to the Giuoco
Piano. Black can be expected to play …Nc6 and …d6. We can see a
typical interpretation of this line by Karpov below, but the most
precise move-order as far as I am aware is seen in the game
Torre-Kamsky, where White avoids having to defend against …Nf6-g4
with h2-h3 (then Nd2-f1-e3), by playing instead Nd2-c4-e3, keeping
watch on g4.

3…Nc6 (Two Knight’s Defence)

3…Nc6 4. Nf3 invites the Two Knights’ Defence,
assuming Black does not play ….Bc5. Black can play …d6 or
…d5. Playing …d5 immediately seems to leave Black’s e-Pawn
exposed (Nunn-Garcia), although if White prepares d2-d4 with an
early c2-c3, Black may show the d-Pawn is weaker after …d5
(Yudasin-Ivanchuk), so White does best to preserve options until
Black shows where the d-Pawn will go (Kosten-Cooper). Black cannot
successfully delay entirely a move of the d-Pawn (Taulbut-Rumens),
nor trick White by playing …d6 and then …d5 (Kosten-Conquest).

3…c6 (Paulsen’s Defence to the Bishop’s
Opening)

3…c6 4. Nf3 is a pure Bishop’s Opening, a line
known as Paulsen’s Defence. Black can play …d5 or more modestly
with …d6. 4…d5 5. Bb3 leaves Black defending a
big centre in a complex middle-game (Nunn-Murey). Black cannot seem
to simplify without disadvantage (Taulbut-Westerinen, Larsen-Nunn).

  Because of this Black may prefer to play modestly in the
style of Philidor’s Defence, with …c6 and …d6. This is rather
playing White’s own game, thinking about …d5 in two moves. White
has some prospects of advantage (Vogt-Chekhov) in a slow
position.

  [Examples of variations]

Example Games

Examples of pawn formations

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy
Lopez)

No games here – really, the whole point of this formation is that
it can become another. With the tension generated by these
unresolved choices, neither side can commit themselves to very
much. Only when there is some decision made might some plan be
readily undertaken, although a phase of manoeuvring may follow the
establishment of such a centre. So, several of the games below
maintain this formation for a move or two, and I will note this
with “[RLTF]“.

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP
unopposed

Ivanovic,B – Ilincic,Z [C50] Jugoslavija,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5
h6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. c3 a6 10. d4 [RLTF] exd4 11. cxd4 Ba7
12. Rc1 O-O 13. h3 Re8 14. O-O Rxe4 15. Bd3 Re8 16. Bb1 g6 17. Qd2
Kg7 18. Rfe1 Be6 19. Nf4 Bd7 20. Rxe8 Qxe8 21. Nd5 Rc8 22. Re1 Qd8
23. g4 Be6 24. Nf4 Bd7 25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. Re6 Be8 27. d5 Ne7 28.
Nh5+ Kh7 29. Nf6+ Kg7 30. Qc3 Kf7 31. Re4 c6 32. Rf4 cxd5 33. Nh7+
Nf5 34. Qd2 Kg7 35. gxf5 Kxh7 36. Rh4 h5 37. Ng5+ Kh8 38. Ne6 Qf6
39. Qh6+ Kg8 40. Rxh5 Rc7 41. Nxc7 Bf7 42. Qh7+ Kf8 43. Qh8+ Qxh8
44. Rxh8+ Kg7 45. Ra8 Bc5 46. Ne8+ Kh6 47. Rd8 d4 48. Nxd6 Bxa2 49.
Nxb7 Ba7 50. Rd6 Bc4 51. Rxg6+ Kh5 52. Nd6 Bd3 53. Nf7 1-0

Speelman Jonathan S – Yusupov Artur [C53] It
(cat.14), Hastings (England), 1989

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. d4 [RLTF] exd4
12. cxd4 Ba7 13. d5 Bg4 14. Be3 Bxe3 15. Nxe3 Bh5 16. Nf1 Ng6 17.
Ng3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nd7 19. Rac1 Nde5 20. Qe3 c6 21. dxc6 bxc6 22.
Nf5 Nh4 23. Red1 Nxf5 24. exf5 a5 25. Qd4 Re8 26. Ba4 Rc8 27. h3
Qf6 28. Rc3 Qxf5 29. Qxd6 Re6 30. Qd2 Rce8 31. Bb3 R6e7 32. Bc2 Qf6
33. Re3 Qg5 34. Qd4 c5 35. Qc3 g6 36. Ba4 Rb8 37. Rde1 f6 38. Qxa5
Kf8 39. Rd1 c4 1-0

Nunn – Murey Luzern cq, 1982

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 Bd6 6.
Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. exd5 cxd5 10. Re1 O-O 11. Qd2 b6
12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Nxe5 d4 14. Nb1 Bb4 15. c3 Bxb3 16. cxb4 Qa6 17.
b5 Qa4 18. Na3 Bd5 19. Rec1 Rac8 20. Rxc8 Rxc8 21. Nec4 Bxc4 22.
Nxc4 Rd8 23. Na3 Nd5 24. Kf1 h6 25. Rc1 Qb4 26. Qxb4 Nxb4 27. Ke2
Nxa2 28. Rc4 Rd5 29. Kd2 Kf8 30. Ra4 Rg5 31. g3 Rf5 32. f4 g5 33.
Nc4 gxf4 34. Rxa2 Rh5 35. gxf4 Rxh2+ 36. Ke1 h5 37. Rxa7 h4 38. Kf1
Kg8 39. Rd7 Rh3 40. Rxd4 Rg3 41. Kf2 1-0

(c) Closed centre with advanced
d-Pawn.

Kasparov,Gary – Georgadze,T (1) Minsk,
1979

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d3 Nf6 5. c3 O-O 6. O-O c6
7. Bb3 Be6 8. Bc2 h6 9. Re1 Nbd7 10. Nbd2 Qc7 11. d4 [RLTF] Rfe8
12. h3 Nf8 13. c4 Ng6 14. d5 Bd7 15. Nb1 Bf8 16. Nc3 c5 17. Ba4 a6
18. Bxd7 Nxd7 19. g3 Be7 20. h4 Nf6 21. Nh2 Qd7 22. a4 Qh3 23. Qf3
Qd7 24. a5 Nf8 25. Bd2 Rec8 26. Nf1 Ng4 27. Na4 Bd8 28. Rec1 Rab8
29. b4 cxb4 30. Bxb4 h5 31. Nb6 Bxb6 32. axb6 Qe7 33. Qa3 Rd8 34.
f3 Nh6 35. c5 dxc5 36. Bxc5 Qf6 37. Kg2 Re8 38. Be3 Nd7 39. Rab1
Qe7 40. Qxe7 1-0

Nunn – Olafsson (Teesside) [C50] potential,
1982

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3
Qe7 [6… O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Ba7] 7.
Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 O-O 9. Re1 Be6 10. Nf1 [10. Bc2]
10… Ba7 11. Bc2

  “But already this opening has certain puzzling
aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative,
both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why
should Black’s position be so awkward? The question really boils
down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening
has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the
present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly developed; he has as
much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has
problems.

“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy
Lopez position Black can easily get cought in a situation where his
game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of
Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find
something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some
serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they
cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should
make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is
far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error
(6…Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to
have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for
that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced
back to this lack of life in his position.” — NUNN AND
GRIFFITHS

11… Kh8 12. Ng3 [12. Bg5]
12… Qd7 13. d4 [RLTF] [13. h3 ! 13… Bxh3
14. gxh3 Qxh3 15. Be3 ! 15… Bxe3 16. Rxe3 Ng4 17. Re2 wins 17…
f5 18. exf5 e4 19. dxe4 Nce5 20. Nxe5 Qh2+ 21. Kf1 dxe5 22. Rd2 and
Qf3] 13… Bg4 [13… exd4 14. cxd4 Bg4
15. Be3 Bxf3 16. gxf3 +-] 14. d5 [14. Be3
Bxf3 15. gxf3 =+] 14… Ne7 15. h3 Bxf3
[15… Bxh3 draws, says nunn] 16. Qxf3 Nfg8 17.
Bd2 g6 18. c4 f5 19. exf5 Nxf5 20. Nxf5 gxf5 21. Bc3 Rae8 22. b4
Ne7 23. h4 Rg8 24. h5 Rg7 25. c5 Reg8 26. g3 h6 [26…
f4 27. Rxe5 dxe5 28. Bxe5 Qh3 29. Re1 fxg3 30. fxg3 b6 31. Qd3 Qxh5
32. Kg2 idea Rh1 wins] 27. Rad1 Qe8 28. Rxe5 dxe5 29.
Bxe5 b6 30. d6 Nc6 31. Bf6 Qe6 32. Bxg7+ Rxg7 33. Qxc6 bxc5 34.
Qa8+ Rg8 35. Qxa7 Rxg3+ 36. Kh2 Qe5 37. Qxc5 1-0

Nunn – Korchnoi, Johannesburg, 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 Bd6 6.Nc3 d4 7.Ne2
Na6 8.c3 dxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 10.0-0 Nc5 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Ng3 Nh5 13.h3
Nxg3 14.fxg3 Bh5 15.g4 Bg6 16.h4 f6 17.h5 Bf7 18.d4 Ne6 19.Bb3 Qa5
20.Bd2 exd4 21.cxd4 Bb4 22.Be3 Rae8 23.h6 Kh8 24.g5 fxg5 25.Ne5 Bg8
26.hxg7+ Kxg7 27.Rf5 Be7 28.Qf3 Qd8 29.Qh5 Rxf5 30.exf5 Nf4 31.Bxf4
Qxd4+ 32.Kh1 Qxa1+ 33.Kh2 Rf8 34.Ng4 gxf4 35.f6+ Rxf6 36.Qg5+ Rg6
37.Qxe7+ Kh8 38.Bxg8 Qg7 39.Bf7 1-0

(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

Kosten,Anthony – Cooper,Lawrence [C55]
London open, 1988

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 h6 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. Re1 Bf8 10. Nf1 Na5 11. Bc2 c5 12. Ng3
g6 13. h3 Bg7 14. d4 [RLTF] cxd4 15. cxd4 exd4 16. Nxd4 d5 17. e5
Ne4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Bf4 Bxe5 20. Rxe4 Bxf4 21. Rxf4 Bd7 22. Qf3
Qe7 23. Qd5 Nc6 24. Bxg6 Ne5 25. Re1 Bc6 26. Qb3 Qg5 27. Rg4 Nxg6
28. Rxe8+ Rxe8 29. Rxg5 hxg5 30. Nxc6 bxc6 31. Qb7 Re1+ 32. Kh2 Re2
33. Qxa7 Rxb2 34. a4 1-0

(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

Larsen,Bent – Berger,Bela [C24] Amsterdam
izt, 1964

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. O-O
Bg4 7. Re1 Be7 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nd4 10. Qg4 O-O 11. Rxe5 Nf6 12.
Qd1 Bd6 13. Re1 Re8 14. Be3 c5 15. Nd2 Bc7 16. Nf3 Qd6 17. Bxd4
cxd4 18. Rxe8+ Rxe8 19. c3 dxc3 20. bxc3 Nh5 21. Qa4 Re7 22. Qxa7
Nf4 23. Qxb7 h5 24. Qc8+ Kh7 25. h4 1-0

Vogt L – Tseshkovsky V, It cat. 10 ,
1981

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 d6 6.Re1 Nbd7
7.h3 0-0 8.a4 Nc5 9.Nc3 h6 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Re8 12.Bf4 Bf8 13.Qf3
Ne6 14.Be3 Ng5 15.Bxg5 hxg5 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.Qxf5 Re5 18.Qf3 Qa5
19.Bb3 Rae8 20.Re2 1/2-1/2

(f) balanced, closed KP centre

Karpov,An – Yusupov A M [C53] It, Bugojno,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Re1 a6 8. Bb3 Ba7 9. h3 h6 10. Nbd2 Nh5 11. Nf1 Qf6 12. Be3
Nf4 13. Bxa7 Rxa7 14. Kh2 Ne7 15. Ne3 Ra8 16. a4 Be6 17. Bxe6 fxe6
18. Ng1 Rad8 19. g3 Nfg6 20. Rf1 d5 21. Qe2 Nc6 22. Ng2 Rf7 23. h4
Rdf8 24. Rad1 Nge7 25. h5 g6 26. Nh3 Qf3 27. Qxf3 Rxf3 28. hxg6
Nxg6 29. Ne3 d4 30. Nc2 R3f7 31. cxd4 Nxd4 32. Nxd4 exd4 33. f4 c5
34. a5 b6 35. axb6 Rb7 36. Rc1 Rxb6 37. Rxc5 Rxb2+ 38. Rf2 Rxf2+
39. Nxf2 Ra8 40. Ra5 Ne7 41. Ng4 Nc6 42. Rc5 Ne7 43. Rc7 Kf8 44.
Ne5 a5 45. g4 a4 46. f5 exf5 47. gxf5 Nxf5 48. exf5 Ra5 49. Rc5
Rxc5 50. Nd7+ Ke7 51. Nxc5 a3 52. Kg3 Kd6 53. Nb3 Ke5 54. Kg4 h5+
55. Kg5 h4 56. f6 Ke6 57. Kg6 h3 58. f7 h2 59. f8=Q h1=Q 60. Nc5+
Ke5 61. Qb8+ 1-0

Dolmatov S – Kruppa Y (12) [C53] Ch URS ( 1
liga ), Irkutsk, 1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Bb3 a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 Ne7 10. Bg5 Ng6 11. Nh4 Bg4 12.
Qc2 Nf4 13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Bxe6 Bxe6 15. Nhf5 h6 16. Bh4 Kh7 17. d4 g5
18. Bg3 Nh5 19. Qe2 Nf4 20. Qf3 Rg8 21. dxe5 dxe5 22. Rfd1 Qf8 23.
Ng4 f6 24. Nfxh6 Rh8 25. Nf5 Kg6 26. h4 Bc4 27. Bxf4 gxf4 28. Nxe5+
1-0

Larsen,B – Torre (2) Brussels, 1987

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O d6 6. Re1
O-O 7. Nbd2 Nbd7 8. a3 h6 9. Ba2 Re8 10. Nf1 Nf8 11. Ng3 Be6 12.
Bxe6 Nxe6 13. d4 Qc7 14. c4 Nh7 15. d5 Neg5 16. Nf5 Nxf3+ 17. Qxf3
Kh8 18. Be3 c5 19. Rac1 Bg5 20. h4 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Rac8 22. b4 Qd8
23. Qg3 Rg8 24. f4 f6 25. b5 Qd7 26. fxe5 fxe5 27. Qg6 Rcd8 28. Rg3
Nf8 29. Qh5 Nh7 30. Re1 Rdf8 31. Rg6 Rf6 32. Rxf6 Nxf6 33. Qg6 Rf8
34. g4 Ne8 35. g5 Qf7 36. Qxf7 Rxf7 37. g6 Rd7 38. Rf1 Kg8 39. a4
h5 40. Kf2 Nf6 41. Ke3 Kf8 42. a5 Rd8 43. Kd3 Rd7 44. a6 b6 45. Rg1
Ng4 46. Rxg4 hxg4 47. Ke3 Rd8 48. Kf2 Kg8 49. Kg3 Rd7 50. Kxg4 Kf8
51. Kg5 Kg8 52. h5 Kh8 53. h6 gxh6+ 54. Nxh6 Kg7 55. Nf5+ Kf8 56.
Kf6 1-0

Examples of variations

3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

Torre Eugenio – Kamsky Gata (1.119) [C53]
Manila (Philippines), 1990

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. O-O
d6 7. Bb3 a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Be6 11. Be3 Bxe3 12.
Nxe3 Qd7 13. Nh4 Bxb3 14. Qxb3 b6 15. Nhf5 Kh7 16. Rad1 Rfe8 17.
Nd5 Nxd5 18. Qxd5 Rad8 19. d4 [RLTF] Kg8 20. Ne3 b5 21. h3 Ne7 22.
Qb3 Qc6 23. d5 Qc5 24. a4 Rf8 25. Qc2 Rb8 26. b4 Qb6 27. Ra1 Ra8
28. c4 bxc4 29. Qxc4 f5 30. Rec1 Rac8 31. b5 axb5 32. axb5 fxe4 33.
Ra6 Qd4 34. Qa2 Qd3 35. Rc4 Rxf2 36. Qxf2 Rf8 37. Qe1 Nxd5 38. Ra3
Qxa3 39. Nxd5 Rf7 40. Kh2 Qb3 41. Qxe4 Qxb5 42. Nxc7 Qd7 43. Nd5
Qe6 44. Ra4 g6 45. Ra8+ Kg7 46. Rd8 h5 47. Qc4 Qf5 48. Rxd6 Qg5 49.
Nc7 Qf4+ 50. Qxf4 exf4 51. Ne6+ Kh6 52. h4 Rf6 53. Ng5 Rxd6 54.
Nf7+ Kg7 55. Nxd6 Kf6 56. Ne4+ Kf5 57. Ng5 Kg4 58. Nf3 Kf5 59. Kg1
Kg4 60. Kf2 Kf5 61. Ke2 Kg4 62. Kd3 Kf5 63. Kd4 Kg4 64. Ke4 Kg3 65.
Ke5 Kg4 66. Kf6 Kg3 67. Kg5 1-0

3…Nc6 (Two Knight’s Defence)

Nunn John D M – Fernandez Garcia Jose L
Lugano Switzerland, 1983

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Re1 Bg4 9. h3 Bh5 10. g4 Bg6 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12.
Rxe5 c6 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. Re2 Qh4 15. Bxd5 cxd5 16. Nc3 Kh8 17. Qxd5
Rad8 18. Bg5 Qxh3 19. Qg2 Qxg2+ 20. Kxg2 f6 21. Bh4 h5 22. gxh5
Bxh5 23. f3 Rfe8 24. Rh1 Kg8 25. Bxf6 Rxe2+ 26. Nxe2 Bxf3+ 27. Kxf3
Rf8 28. d4 Rxf6+ 29. Ke3 Bf8 30. Nc3 Re6+ 31. Ne4 Ra6 32. Ra1 b5
33. d5 Kf7 34. Kd4 g6 35. Nc5 Bg7+ 36. Ke4 Bxb2 37. Rf1+ Rf6 38.
Rb1 Ba3 39. Rxb5 Bxc5 40. Rxc5 Ra6 41. Ke5 Ke7 42. Rc7+ Kd8 43. Rg7
1-0

Taulbut – Rumens Civil Service Open,
1981

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bb3 O-O 6. O-O
Re8 7. Nc3 d6 8. Ng5 Rf8 9. f4 Na5 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. Nxf7 Rxf7 12.
Bxd5 c6 13. Bxf7+ Kxf7 14. b4 Qb6+ 15. Kh1 Qxb4 16. Bd2 Qc5 17.
Qh5+ g6 18. Qxh7+ Ke8 19. Qxg6+ Kd7 20. Qg4+ 1-0

Yudasin Leonid – Ivanchuk Vassily (2) Ch
World match cand., 1991

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c3
d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Re1 Bg4 9. Nbd2 Kh8 10. a4 f6 11. a5 Rb8 12. Nf1
Be6 13. Qa4 a6 14. Bxa6 Nxa5 15. Qxa5 Ra8 16. Qb5 Nb6 17. Be3 Bd7
18. Qb3 bxa6 19. d4 e4 20. N3d2 f5 21. d5 Rb8 22. Qa2 Bf6 23. Rad1
Na4 24. Nc4 Bb5 25. Na5 Nxb2 26. Qxb2 Bxf1 27. Qa2 Bb5 28. c4 Bd7
29. Nc6 Bxc6 30. dxc6 Qe8 31. Qxa6 Bc3 32. Rf1 f4 33. Ba7 Ra8 34.
Qb7 f3 35. Qxc7 Be5 36. Qd7 Rxa7 0-1

Kupreichik,V – Yusupov,A Minsk,
1982

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Bb3
Qc7 7. O-O Na6 8. a3 Nc5 9. Ba2 d6 10. b4 Ne6 11. Ne2 a5 12. Bb2
Re8 13. Qd2 Bf8 14. Ng3 c5 15. b5 h6 16. Nh4 Qd8 17. Ngf5 g6 18. f4
gxf5 19. fxe5 dxe5 20. Nxf5 Nf4 21. Rxf4 exf4 22. Qxf4 Bxf5 23.
Qxf5 Bg7 24. Rf1 c4 25. Bxc4 Qb6+ 26. Kh1 Rac8 27. Bxf6 Qxf6 28.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 29. Qh5+ Kg8 30. Rxf6 Bxf6 31. Qxh6 Bg7 32. Qd2 Rf8 33.
g3 Bd4 34. Qg5+ Bg7 35. c4 Rf2 36. e5 Rcf8 37. Qe3 Ra2 38. Kg1 Kh7
39. e6 Bf6 40. d4 b6 41. d5 Be7 42. d6 Rd8 43. h3 1-0

Spraggett,Kevin – Marin,Mihail (06) [C54]
Manila izt, 1990

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 d6 6. Bb3
O-O 7. O-O a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 Be6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Bg3
Ne7 13. Ne3 Qd7 14. Re1 Kg7 15. d4 [RLTF] Nxe4 16. dxe5 d5 17. Nd4
Rad8 18. Qh5 Nc6 19. Nxe6+ Qxe6 20. Rad1 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Qf6 22. Bxd5
Nxg3 23. hxg3 Nxe5 24. Be4 Ng4 25. Rf1 Qe6 26. Re2 Nf6 27. Qf3 Nxe4
28. Rxe4 Qxa2 29. Rb4 b5 30. Qc6 Qa5 31. f4 Qb6+ 32. Qxb6 cxb6 33.
Ra1 Rfe8 34. fxg5 hxg5 35. Rxa6 Re2 36. Rd4 Rxd4 37. cxd4 Rxb2 38.
Rxb6 f6 Q

Kosten Anthony C – Conquest Stuart (14)
London England, 1989

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 d5 [RLTF] 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Qe2 dxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5
12. Rd1 Qc8 13. Nc4 h6 14. Bc2 Qe6 15. Ne3 Rad8 16. Bd2 Rfe8 17.
Nf5 Bf8 18. g4 Bg6 19. N3h4 Bxf5 20. gxf5 Qe7 21. Kh2 Nh7 22. Nf3
Rd6 23. Be3 Qd7 24. Rg1 b5 25. Rg3 Rf6 26. Rd1 Qc8 27. Rdg1 Kh8 28.
Qf1 1-0

Kosten Anthony C – Hebden Mark It open,
1987

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 Na5 8. Bc2 c5 9. Nbd2 Re8 10. a3 b5 11. b4 Nc6 12. a4 cxb4
13. axb5 Nb8 14. cxb4 d5 15. Bb2 Bxb4 16. Nxe5 Bb7 17. Ndf3 a6 18.
bxa6 Rxa6 19. Rxa6 Bxa6 20. Ng5 Rf8 21. Bb3 Bb7 22. Nexf7 Qe7 23.
e5 Ne8 24. Qh5 h6 25. Qg6 1-0

3…c6 (Paulsen’s Defence to the Bishop’s
Opening)

cf. Nunn-Murey above
Taulbut – Westerinen Brighton, 1981

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 dxe4
6. Ng5 Bc5 7. Nxf7 Qb6 8. O-O Ng4 9. Nc3 Rf8 10. Nxe4 Rxf7 11.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. h3 Nf6 13. Nxf6 Kxf6 14. Qh5 h6 15. Kh1 Be6 16. f4
Ke7 17. Qxe5 Bd4 18. Qe2 g6 19. f5 gxf5 20. Bxh6 Na6 21. c3 Bh8 22.
Rae1 c5 23. Qh5 Kd7 24. Rxf5 Bg8 25. Rf7+ Kd8 26. Qh4+ Kc8 27. Rf8+
1-0

Vogt,L – Romanishin,O Riga, 1981

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 Bb4+
6. Bd2 Bxd2+ 7. Nbxd2 Qc7 8. O-O O-O 9. Re1 Bg4 10. h3 Bxf3 11.
Qxf3 dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Rxe4 Nd7 14. d4 exd4 15. Re7 Qd6 16.
Rae1 Kh8 17. Bxf7 Rad8 18. Qg4 Nf6 19. Qh4 Qb4 20. Bg6 Rd7 21. Re8
Rd8 22. c3 Rdxe8 23. Rxe8 Qd6 24. Rxf8+ Qxf8 25. cxd4 Qb4 26. b3
Qd2 27. Bf5 Qxa2 28. Qg3 Qe2 29. Qb8+ Qe8 30. Qxb7 g6 31. Bd3 a5
32. Bf1 Qd8 33. Qxc6 Qxd4 34. Qa8+ Kg7 35. Qxa5 Ne4 36. Qe1 h5 37.
Qe3 Qb4 38. Bc4 Nf6 39. Qe5 Qb6 40. g3 Kh6 41. Qe3+ 1-0

Larsen, Bent – Nunn, John (6) London,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2
Bxd2+ 7. Nbxd2 dxe4 8. Nxe5 O-O 9. dxe4 Nxe4 10. Ndf3 Nd7 11. O-O
Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Qf6 13. Qd4 Bf5 14. f4 Qd8 15. Rad1 Qxd4+ 16. Rxd4
Nc5 17. Bc4 Rae8 18. b4 Ne6 19. Rd7 b5 20. Bb3 Rd8 21. Rxa7 Rd2 22.
Nf3 Rd6 23. Nh4 g6 24. Nxf5 gxf5 25. c3 Rd3 26. Rf3 Rxf3 27. gxf3
Rd8 28. Bxe6 fxe6 29. Rc7 Rd1+ 30. Kf2 Rd2+ 31. Ke3 Rxh2 32. Rxc6
Kf7 33. Ra6 Rc2 34. Kd4 Rf2 35. a4 bxa4 36. b5 Ke7 37. c4 Rxf3 38.
Kc5 a3 39. b6 Rb3 40. Ra7+ Kf6 41. Kc6 e5 42. b7 exf4 43. Rxa3
1-0

Vogt,L – Chekhov, Halle, 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 d6 6.h3 0-0 7.Re1
Nbd7 8.a4 a5 9.Nc3 h6 10.Ba2 Re8 11.d4 Bf8 12.Be3 Qc7 13.Nh4 b6
14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Qf3 Bc5 16.Nf5 Bxe3 17.Rxe3 Kf8 18.Rd1 Ba6 19.Nxh6
Re7 20.Nf5 Ree8 21.g4 Nc5 22.g5 Ng8 23.g6 f6 24.Bxg8 Kxg8 25.Qh5
1-0

Example of Queen’s-side advance

Ljubojevic,Ljubomir – Kortchnoi,Viktor (08)
[C54] Brussels SWIFT, 1987

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. b4 Bb6 6. d3 d6
7. a4 a5 8. b5 Ne7 9. Nbd2 Ng6 10. O-O O-O 11. Bb3 d5 12. Ba3 Re8
13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Ne4 Ndf4 15. Nfg5 Be6 16. Nxe6 Nxe6 17. g3 Kh8
18. Qf3 f6 19. h4 Ngf8 20. Rad1 Qd7 21. Rfe1 Rad8 22. Bc4 h6 23.
Qh5 Nh7 24. Kh2 Ba7 25. Rf1 Bb8 26. Nc5 Nxc5 27. Bxc5 b6 28. Ba3 c5
29. bxc6 Qxc6 30. Bb5 Qxc3 31. Bxe8 Qxa3 32. Bb5 Bd6 33. d4 exd4
34. Rfe1 Be5 35. f4 Bd6 36. Re8+ Rxe8 37. Qxe8+ Bf8 38. f5 Qf3 39.
Qe6 Qxd1 40. Bc4 Qc2+ 41. Kh3 Qxc4 42. Qxc4 Bc5 43. Kg4 Nf8 44. Qd5
Kh7 45. Kf3 Kh8 46. Ke4 Kh7 47. Kd3 Kh8 48. Kc4 Kh7 49. Kb5 Kh8 50.
Kc6 Kh7 51. Kc7 h5 52. Kd8 Kh6 53. Ke8 1-0

Mestel A Jonathan – Pinter Jozsef [C53] It
(cat.14), Las Palmas (Spain), 1982

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. b4 Bb6
7. a4 a5 8. b5 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. Nbd2 Ng6 11. Ba2 Bg4 12. h3 Bh5
13. Qc2 Nf4 14. Kh2 g5 15. Ng1 g4 16. g3 gxh3 17. f3 Kh8 18. gxf4
Rg8 19. Nxh3 Qf8 20. Nc4 Qg7 21. Ng5 Qh6 22. Nxb6 Bxf3+ 23. Kg3
exf4+ 24. Bxf4 Rxg5+ 25. Bxg5 Rg8 26. Kxf3 Qh3+ 27. Ke2 Rxg5 28.
Rf2 Ng4 29. Qd2 h6 30. Rg1 cxb6 31. Qf4 f5 32. Rxg4 Qxg4+ 33. Qxg4
fxg4 34. Rf5 Rxf5 35. exf5 Kg7 36. Ke3 1-0

I have been looking at French repertoires recently, and thought it was
useful for my own amusement at least to see what various authors
writing for the Black audience recommended.

Repertoire books these days often give you a choice, which is excellent.

Food for thought!  I like McDonald’s trick against the Wing
Gambit, that’s definitely worth a punt.

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.

  [Event "London BCF Congress"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1922.??.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Alekhine, Alexander"]  [Black "Euwe, Max"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A48"]  [PlyCount "99"]  [EventDate "1922.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "HCL"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. Nbd2 c5 5. e3 d6 6. c3 Nc6 7. h3 O-O 8. Bc4  Re8 9. O-O e5 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Bxe5 dxe5 12. Ng5 Be6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Nde4  Nxe4 15. Qxd8 Rexd8 16. Nxe4 b6 17. Rfd1 Kf8 18. Kf1 Ke7 19. c4 h6 20. Ke2 Rxd1  21. Rxd1 Rb8 22. Rd3 Bh8 23. a4 Rc8 24. Rb3 Kd7 25. a5 Kc6 26. axb6 axb6 27.  Ra3 Bg7 28. Ra7 Rc7 29. Ra8 Re7 30. Rc8+ Kd7 31. Rg8 Kc6 32. h4 Kc7 33. g4 Kc6  34. Kd3 Rd7+ 35. Kc3 Rf7 36. b3 Kc7 37. Kd3 Rd7+ 38. Ke2 Rf7 39. Nc3 Re7 40. g5  hxg5 41. hxg5 Kc6 42. Kd3 Rd7+ 43. Ke4 Rc7 44. Nb5 Re7 45. f3 Kd7 46. Rb8 Kc6  47. Rc8+ Kd7 48. Rc7+ Kd8 49. Rc6 Rb7 50. Rxe6 1-0   

Capablanca later played a game that was a good advert for it against Yates in 1924, where again dark square dominance was a theme.

  [Event "New York"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1924.??.??"]  [Round "7"]  [White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]  [Black "Yates, Frederick"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D00"]  [PlyCount "153"]  [EventDate "1924.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "HCL"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 O-O 6. h3 c5 7. dxc5 Qa5 8. Nd2  Qxc5 9. Nb3 Qb6 10. Be5 e6 11. Nb5 Ne8 12. Bxg7 Nxg7 13. h4 a6 14. Nc3 Nc6 15.  Bd3 f5 16. Qd2 Ne5 17. Be2 Nc4 18. Bxc4 dxc4 19. Qd4 Qc7 20. Qc5 Qxc5 21. Nxc5  b6 22. N5a4 Rb8 23. O-O-O b5 24. Nc5 Rb6 25. a4 Nh5 26. b3 cxb3 27. cxb3 bxa4  28. N3xa4 Rc6 29. Kb2 Nf6 30. Rd2 a5 31. Rhd1 Nd5 32. g3 Rf7 33. Nd3 Rb7 34.  Ne5 Rcc7 35. Rd4 Kg7 36. e4 fxe4 37. Rxe4 Rb5 38. Rc4 Rxc4 39. Nxc4 Bd7 40. Nc3  Rc5 41. Ne4 Rb5 42. Ned6 Rc5 43. Nb7 Rc7 44. Nbxa5 Bb5 45. Nd6 Bd7 46. Nac4 Ra7  47. Ne4 h6 48. f4 Be8 49. Ne5 Ra8 50. Rc1 Bf7 51. Rc6 Bg8 52. Nc5 Re8 53. Ra6  Re7 54. Ka3 Bf7 55. b4 Nc7 56. Rc6 Nb5+ 57. Kb2 Nd4 58. Ra6 Be8 59. g4 Kf6 60.  Ne4+ Kg7 61. Nd6 Bb5 62. Ra5 Bf1 63. Ra8 g5 64. fxg5 hxg5 65. hxg5 Bg2 66. Re8  Rc7 67. Rd8 Nc6 68. Ne8+ Kf8 69. Nxc7+ Nxd8 70. Kc3 Bb7 71. Kd4 Bc8 72. g6 Nb7  73. Ne8 Nd8 74. b5 Kg8 75. g5 Kf8 76. g7+ Kg8 77. g6 1-0   

And Frank Marshall used it in his own style, playing for mate in a way that may later have inspired Mark Hebden:

  [Event "Ostend"]  [Site "Ostend"]  [Date "1907.??.??"]  [Round "3"]  [White "Marshall, Frank James"]  [Black "Burn, Amos"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A48"]  [PlyCount "39"]  [EventDate "1907.??.??"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bf4 Nbd7 4. e3 g6 5. Bd3 Bg7 6. Nbd2 O-O 7. h4 Re8 8. h5  Nxh5 9. Rxh5 gxh5 10. Bxh7+ Kxh7 11. Ng5+ Kg6 12. Ndf3 e5 13. Nh4+ Kf6 14. Nh7+  Ke7 15. Nf5+ Ke6 16. Nxg7+ Ke7 17. Nf5+ Ke6 18. d5+ Kxf5 19. Qxh5+ Ke4 20.  O-O-O 1-0   

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.

  [Event "Vinkovci"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1970.??.??"]  [Round "11"]  [White "Bronstein, David I"]  [Black "Bertok, Mario"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "117"]  [EventDate "1970.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "MCL"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. Nbd2 d5 5. e3 c5 6. c3 Qb6 7. Qb3 O-O 8. Qxb6  axb6 9. Bc7 Nfd7 10. Bb5 Na6 11. Bg3 Nf6 12. h3 Bd7 13. Be2 Rfc8 14. O-O Nc7  15. Rfe1 Ne6 16. Be5 Bc6 17. a3 c4 18. Rac1 b5 19. Bd1 Bh6 20. Bc2 Ne4 21. Nxe4  dxe4 22. Nd2 f5 23. a4 bxa4 24. Nxc4 Ra6 25. Na3 Nc7 26. Bd1 Nd5 27. Be2 Ra5  28. c4 Nc7 29. Nb5 Ne8 30. Nc3 Bg7 31. Bxg7 Kxg7 32. Ra1 b6 33. Rab1 Nd6 34. b4  axb3 35. Rxb3 Ba8 36. Rb4 Rc7 37. Na4 b5 38. Nc5 Rca7 39. cxb5 Ra1 40. Reb1  Rxb1+ 41. Rxb1 Ra2 42. Kf1 Bd5 43. b6 g5 44. Ke1 Nb7 45. Bd1 Ra5 46. Kd2 Ra2+  47. Bc2 h5 48. Kc3 Bc6 49. g4 fxg4 50. hxg4 h4 51. Bxe4 Nxc5 52. Bxc6 Na6 53.  Rf1 Nb8 54. Bd5 Ra5 55. Be4 e6 56. b7 Nd7 57. Bc6 Nb8 58. Bh1 Kf7 59. Rc1 1-0   

  [Event "URS-HUN m Moscow"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1971.??.??"]  [Round "2"]  [White "Bronstein, David I"]  [Black "Farago, Ivan"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A46"]  [PlyCount "91"]  [EventDate "1971.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "EXT 2002"]   1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. c3 Qb6 5. Qb3 Nc6 6. e3 Qxb3 7. axb3 b6 8. h3  Be7 9. dxc5 bxc5 10. Bb5 Bb7 11. Nbd2 a6 12. Ba4 Nd5 13. Bh2 Nb6 14. Nc4 Nxc4  15. bxc4 d6 16. O-O-O O-O-O 17. Bc2 Nb8 18. e4 e5 19. b3 g6 20. Nd2 Bg5 21.  Rhf1 Bf4 22. g3 Bh6 23. f4 Nc6 24. Kb2 exf4 25. gxf4 Bg7 26. e5 dxe5 27. f5 Rd7  28. Ne4 Rhd8 29. Rxd7 Rxd7 30. Nxc5 Rc7 31. Ne4 Rd7 32. Bg1 Bh6 33. c5 Bf4 34.  Nd6+ Kc7 35. b4 Ne7 36. f6 Ng8 37. Nxb7 Kxb7 38. c6+ Kxc6 39. Ba4+ Kc7 40. Bxd7  Kxd7 41. Ra1 Nxf6 42. Rxa6 Nd5 43. b5 e4 44. c4 Nc7 45. Ra7 e3 46. b6 1-0   

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

  [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2018.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "London System"]  [Black "Two Knights"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "15"]  [EventDate "2018.??.??"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Nc6 5. c3 Qb6 6. Qb3 c4 7. Qc2 (7. Qxb6  axb6 8. Na3 Ra5 (8... Rxa3 9. bxa3 Bf5)) 7... Bf5 8. Qc1 (8. 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:

  [Event "EU-ch 2nd"]  [Site "Ohrid"]  [Date "2001.06.06"]  [Round "6"]  [White "Miles, Anthony J"]  [Black "Minasian, Ara"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D00"]   1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5 3. e3 Nc6 4. c3 Qb6 5. Qb3 c4 6. Qc2 Bf5 7. Qxf5 Qxb2 8.  Qxd5 Qc1+ 9. Ke2 Qb2+ 10. Kf3 Nf6 11. Qxc4 Qxa1 12. Qb3 O-O-O 13. Bb5 Na5 14.  Qc2 a6 15. Bd3 e5 16. Bxe5 Nd7 17. Bf4 Be7 18. Nh3 g5 19. Nxg5 1-0   

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:

  [Event "Moscow ol (Women)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1994.??.??"]  [Round "10"]  [White "Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina"]  [Black "Kadimova, Ilaha"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "B13"]  [WhiteElo "2290"]  [BlackElo "2355"]  [PlyCount "52"]  [EventDate "1994.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "EXT 1999"]   1. d4 (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bf4 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bf5 7. Qb3  Qc8 8. Be2 e6 9. O-O Be7 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Rac1 Ne4 12. Rfe1 h6 13. Nxe4 Bxe4  14. Ne5 Bg5 (14... Bd6 $1 15. Nxc6 Qxc6 16. Bxd6 Qxd6 $15 {Prie}) 15. Bxg5 hxg5  16. Qd1 Ne7 17. c4 Qd8 18. Bg4 Bf5 19. Bf3 Rc8 20. Qb3 f6 21. Ng4 Nc6 22. Qd1  Nb4 23. Ne3 dxc4 24. Nxf5 exf5 25. Be2 b5 26. a4 a6 27. axb5 axb5 28. b3 Na2  29. Rc2 {1/2-1/2 (31) Kovalevskaya,E (2290)-Kadimova,I (2355) Moscow 1994} Nb4  30. Rc1 Na2 31. Rc2 {KK 94 OLW}) 1... d5 2. Bf4 c5 (2... Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. dxc5  Nc6 (4... Qa5+) 5. Bb5 (5. Nc3 e5 6. Bg5 Be6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qf3 Qa5 9. Bb5  O-O-O 10. Nge2 Rg8 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. h3 Bxc5 13. g4 h5 14. O-O-O hxg4 15. Qxf6  Qc7 16. hxg4 Be7 17. Qf3 Bxg4 18. Qxf7 d4 19. f3 Rgf8 20. Qh7 Bf5 21. Qh6 dxc3  22. Nxc3 Rxd1+ 23. Rxd1 Rg8 24. Ne4 Kb7 25. Nd6+ Bxd6 26. Rxd6 Rg1+ 27. Rd1  Rxd1+ 28. Kxd1 Qh7 29. Qxh7+ Bxh7 30. Kd2 Kc7 31. c4 c5 32. Kc3 Bg6 33. a3 Bh5  34. f4 e4 35. b4 Kd6 36. Kb3 Bf7 37. Kc3 Be6 38. Kb3 Kc6 39. Kc3 Kb6 40. Kb3 a6  41. Kc3 Bg4 42. Kb2 a5 43. Kb3 a4+ 44. Kxa4 Bd1# {0-1 (44) Rowson,J (2599)  -Shaw,J (2432) Birmingham 2005}) 5... Qa5+ 6. Nc3 a6) 3. e3 (3. e4 $5 Nc6 (3...  Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7) 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nc3 Qf5 6. Qd2 cxd4 7. Nb5 e5 8. Nc7+ Kd8 9.  Nxa8 exf4 10. O-O-O Be6 11. Ne2 Bc5 12. Nxf4 Bxa2 13. g3 Bb4 14. Qe3 Bd6 15.  Rxd4 Nxd4 16. Qxd4 Qe5 17. Qd2 Nf6 18. Bg2 Kc8 19. Re1 Qc5 20. Re3 Kb8 21. Rc3  Qb4 22. Nd3 Qd4 23. Qg5 Kxa8 24. Qxg7 Re8 25. g4 Bb4 26. g5 Bxc3 27. bxc3 Qxc3  {0-1 (27) Rowson,J (2599)-Stojanovic,M (2522) Verona 2006}) 3... Nc6 4. c3 Nf6  (4... Qb6 5. Qb3 c4 6. Qc2 Bf5 7. Qxf5 Qxb2 8. Qxd5 Qc1+ 9. Ke2 Qb2+ 10. Kf3  Nf6 11. Qxc4 Qxa1 12. Qb3 O-O-O 13. Bb5 Na5 14. Qc2 a6 15. Bd3 e5 16. Bxe5 Nd7  17. Bf4 Be7 18. Nh3 g5 19. Nxg5 {1-0 (19) Miles,A (2562)-Minasian,A (2478)  Ohrid 2001 CBM 084 [Finkel,A]}) 5. Nd2 (5. Bd3 $6 Qb6 $1 6. Qb3 (6. Qc1) 6...  c4 7. Qxb6 axb6 8. Bc2 b5 9. Na3 b4 10. cxb4 c3 11. Nb5 Nxb4 12. Bb3 cxb2 13.  Rb1 Ra5 14. Kd1 Nd3 15. Bg3 Rxb5 16. Ba4 Bd7 17. Bxb5 Bxb5 18. f3 e6 19. Nh3  Ba3 20. Kc2 Ke7 21. Kb3 Rc8 22. Nf4 Bc4+ {0-1 (22) Israel,G (2149)-Geenen,M  (2356) Belgium 2005}) 5... Bf5 $1 (5... cxd4 6. exd4 (6. cxd4 Qb6) 6... Bf5 $1  7. Ngf3 e6 8. Qb3 Bd6 (8... Qc8 9. Nh4 Bg6 10. Nxg6 hxg6 11. h3 Be7 12. Bd3 a6  13. a4 Nh5 14. Bh2 {1/2-1/2 (14) Gonda,L (2448)-Erdos,V (2522) Budapest HUN 2005}  Bd8 $1 15. O-O Bc7 $1 {and Prie prefers Black's structure}) 9. Bxd6 Qxd6 10.  Be2 (10. Qxb7 O-O 11. Bb5 Ne7 12. Qa6 Qc7 13. Bd3 Rfb8 14. Bxf5 Nxf5 15. Rb1  Rb6 16. Qe2 Rab8 17. Nb3 Ne4 18. O-O a5 19. Nxa5 Qa7 20. Nc4 Nxc3 21. Qc2 Nxb1  22. Nxb6 Na3 23. bxa3 Qxb6 24. Rd1 g6 25. h3 Ra8 26. Rd3 Kg7 27. Qd2 Rc8 28.  Rb3 Qc6 29. Kh2 Qc7+ 30. g3 Qc2 31. Qxc2 Rxc2 {()-() (71) Tang,A (2466)-Li,R  (2564) chess.com INT 2017}) 10... O-O 11. O-O Rab8) 6. Qb3 Qd7 $1 7. Ngf3 (7.  dxc5 e5 8. Bg3 Bxc5 9. Ngf3 Bd6 10. Bb5 Qc7 (10... Qe7)) 7... c4 $1 8. Qd1 e6  9. Be2 b5 10. Nh4 Bd6 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. Nxf5 exf5 13. Qc2 Ne4 14. Nxe4 fxe4 15.  a4 b4 16. b3 cxb3 17. Qxb3 O-O 18. O-O Rab8 19. cxb4 Nxb4 (19... Rxb4 $5) 20.  Qa3 f5 21. g3 g5 22. Rac1 f4 23. gxf4 gxf4 24. Kh1 f3 25. Rg1+ $4 (25. Bb5)  25... Kh8 26. Bf1 Nd3 {0-1 (26) Muranyi,K (2339)-Saric,A (2597) Germany 2015}  1/2-1/2   

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!

  [Event "US op"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2001.??.??"]  [Round "2"]  [White "Blatny, Pavel"]  [Black "Luchan, Jason"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D02"]  [WhiteElo "2475"]  [BlackElo "2110"]  [PlyCount "35"]  [EventDate "2001.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "CBM 083 ext"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 Bd6 7. Bg3 O-O 8. Bd3  Re8 9. Ne5 Qe7 10. f4 Nd7 11. Ndf3 f6 12. Bh4 Nf8 13. O-O Qc7 14. Ng4 Qe7 15.  Nfe5 Bd7 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. Nh6+ Kg7 18. Qg4+ 1-0   

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.

   [Event "78th Tata Steel GpA"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2016.??.??"]  [Round "10"]  [White "Karjakin, Sergey"]  [Black "Adams, Mi"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D02"]  [WhiteElo "2765"]  [BlackElo "2740"]  [PlyCount "62"]  [EventDate "2016.??.??"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 Bd6 (6... cxd4 7. exd4  (7. cxd4) 7... Nh5 8. Bg5 f6 9. Be3 Bd6 10. Bb5 O-O 11. O-O) 7. Bg3 O-O 8. Bd3  b6 9. Ne5 (9. e4 dxe4 (9... Be7 10. e5 Nh5 11. Ng5 $5 (11. a3 {Williams}) 11...  Bxg5 12. Qxh5 g6 13. Qe2 cxd4 14. h4 Bh6 (14... Bxd2+ 15. Qxd2 dxc3 16. bxc3 d4  17. c4 Qe7 18. Rb1 h5 19. Bf4 Bb7 20. O-O Rfc8 21. Bg5 Qf8 22. Bf6 Ne7 23. Qg5  Nf5 24. Bxf5 exf5 25. e6 Kh7 26. e7 Qe8 27. Rfd1 Rxc4 28. Rxd4 Rxd4 29. Bxd4  Qc6 30. Rd1 Qd6 31. Rd2 Re8 32. Be3 Qxe7 33. Qh6+ Kg8 34. Bd4 f6 35. Qxg6+ Kf8  36. Bxf6 {1-0 (36) Van Foreest,J (2615)-Svane,R (2552) Germany 2016}) 15. h5  dxc3 16. bxc3 Bg7) 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 Bb7 12. dxc5 Bxc5 13. Qxd8 (13. O-O))  9... Bb7 10. f4 Ne7 11. Qf3 Nf5 12. Bf2 Be7 13. g4 Nd6 14. g5 Nfe4 15. O-O-O c4  16. Bc2 b5 17. Qh3 b4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Be1 Bd5 20. Rg1 b3 21. axb3 cxb3 22.  Bb1 f5 23. gxf6 Bxf6 24. Rg4 Nf5 25. Kd2 Qa5 26. Ke2 Bxe5 27. dxe5 Rad8 28. Kf2  Qa1 29. Bd2 Bc4 30. Qh5 Qxb2 31. Ke1 Rxd2 0-1  

But White found a fabulous idea in the main line:

  [Event "23rd Eastern Class"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2014.??.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Kamsky, Gata"]  [Black "Shankland, Sam"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D02"]  [WhiteElo "2705"]  [BlackElo "2610"]  [PlyCount "61"]  [EventDate "2014.??.??"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Nd2 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Bd6 7. Bg3 O-O 8. Bd3  Qe7 9. Ne5 Nd7 10. Nxd7 Bxd7 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. dxc5 Qxc5 13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.  Qh5+ Kg8 15. Ne4 Qc4 16. Ng5 Rfd8 17. Qxf7+ Kh8 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Rd1 e5 20.  Qf7+ Kh8 21. e4 Ne7 22. Qxe7 Bb5 23. Rd2 Qxa2 24. Qf7 Qa1+ 25. Rd1 Qxb2 26.  Qh5+ Kg8 27. Qh7+ Kf8 28. Qh8+ Ke7 29. Qxg7+ Kd6 30. Rxd5+ Kc6 31. Qf6+ 1-0   

So, avoid that for sure!

Another trap:

  [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Enter New Game"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [PlyCount "23"]  [EventType "swiss"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Nc6  5. c3 e6 6. Nbd2 Bd6 7. Bb5 a6 $2 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. Qa4 Bb7 $2 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11.  Qa3 Nd7 12. Nb3 *   

  [Event "Izmir GP op"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2002.??.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Vasilev, Milen"]  [Black "Demirel, Tolga"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D02"]  [WhiteElo "2445"]  [BlackElo "2165"]  [PlyCount "98"]  [EventDate "2002.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "CBM 090 ext"]   1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nd2 e6 6. Ngf3 Bd6 7. Ne5 Qc7 8. Bb5  Bd7 (8... O-O 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. O-O Ba6 (10... Rb8) 11. Re1 Rab8 12. Nb3 c4 13.  Nc5 Bxc5 14. dxc5 g5 $2 (14... Qb7) 15. Ng4 gxf4 16. Nxf6+ Kg7 17. Nh5+ Kh8 18.  exf4 f6 19. Rxe6 Qf7 20. Rxf6 {1-0 1-0 (20) De Rooi,P-Haldane,R Guernsey 1987})  9. Nxd7 Nxd7 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 $11 11. O-O (11. Qg4 O-O 12. f4 Nf6 (12... f5 13.  Qe2 a6) (12... a6 13. Be2 b5 (13... f5)) 13. Qf3 Ne7 14. Bd3 Qb6 15. Rb1 $14)  11... O-O 12. f4 a6 13. Bd3 c4 14. Bc2 f5 15. Nf3 b5 16. a3 Ra7 17. Qe1 a5 18.  Qh4 Qe7 19. Qh3 Nf6 20. Kh1 Rb7 21. Ng5 g6 22. Qh4 Rfb8 23. h3 b4 24. axb4 axb4  25. Ra6 Rb6 26. Rxb6 Rxb6 27. Ra1 Kg7 28. Ra8 bxc3 29. bxc3 h6 30. Ba4 Nd8 31.  Nf3 Nf7 32. Kh2 Qb7 33. Ra5 Ra6 34. Rb5 Qd7 35. Ne5 Nxe5 36. dxe5 Ng8 37. Ra5  Qa7 38. Rxa6 Qxa6 39. Bd7 Qb6 40. Qg3 Kf7 41. h4 Qd8 42. Bxe6+ Kxe6 43. Qxg6+  Kd7 44. Qxf5+ Kc6 45. Qe6+ Kb5 46. g3 Ne7 47. f5 h5 48. f6 Nc6 49. f7 Ne7 1-0   

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:

  [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2018.08.29"]  [Round "?"]  [White "London"]  [Black "Grunfeld"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "57"]  [EventDate "2018.??.??"]  [SourceDate "2018.08.29"]  [SourceVersionDate "2018.08.29"]   1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Nf6 3. Nf3 g6 4. e3 Bg7 5. Be2 (5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Nbd2 O-O  8. h3 Nd7 {as in the main game} 9. O-O e5 10. dxe5 Ndxe5 {Here White has the  extra option} 11. Bc2 h6 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. e4 dxe4 {White gets an edge after  this natural move} (13... d4) (13... Be6) 14. Nxe4 b6 15. Nd6 $1 Qf6 16. Bxe5  Qxe5 17. Re1 Qg5 18. Be4 Rb8 19. Bd5 Bxh3 20. Nxf7 Rxf7 21. Bxf7+ Kh7 22. Qd5  Bf5 23. Rad1 Bf6 24. Re8 Rxe8 25. Bxe8 {1-0 (25) Kharlov,A (2615)-Hillarp  Persson,T (2507) Skelleftea 1999}) 5... O-O 6. O-O c5 (6... c6 {is solid and  neither threatening nor inspiring} 7. h3 Nbd7 8. c4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 c5 $1 $146 {  keeps White to a minimal edge.} (9... Nb6 10. Bb3 Bf5 11. Nc3 Nbd5 12. Bh2 Rc8  13. Rc1 $14) 10. Bh2 cxd4 (10... b6)) 7. c3 Nc6 8. Nbd2 Nd7 {This is the  classic Grunfeld manoeuvre, but in an unusual context.} (8... Nh5 9. Bg5 h6 10.  Bh4 g5 11. Ne1 Nf6 12. Bg3 Nd7 13. Nd3 (13. Bf3 $5 $146 {J/K}) 13... c4 14. Ne1  e5 $11 {is the main line given by J/K, but these moves are barely explored.})  9. Qb3 (9. h3 e5 $1 $11) 9... e5 $6 (9... c4 10. Qa3 b5 11. b3) 10. dxe5 Ndxe5  11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Rad1 Be6 13. Qxb7 $5 Qa5 $6 (13... Rb8 14. Qxa7 Rxb2 15. Qxc5  Qa8 $11) 14. Qa6 Qxa6 15. Bxa6 c4 16. Bxe5 Bxe5 17. e4 Rab8 18. exd5 Bxd5 19.  Bxc4 Bc6 20. Nb3 Rfc8 21. Rfe1 Bf6 22. Bd5 Be8 23. g3 a5 24. Nxa5 Rxb2 25. Nc4  Rbb8 26. Nd6 Rd8 27. Rxe8+ Rxe8 28. Bxf7+ Kf8 29. Bxe8 {1-0 (29) Anastasian,A  (2475)-Sobolewski,P (2305) Leningrad 1990} *   

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.

  [Event "Bugojno"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1978.??.??"]  [Round "25"]  [White "Spassky B"]  [Black "Bukic E"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A48"]  [PlyCount "58"]  [EventDate "1978.??.??"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Be2 d6 6. O-O Nbd7 (6... Nfd7 $1 {  Sielecki} 7. h3 e5 8. Bh2 exd4 (8... Nc6 9. c4 f5 10. Nc3 Kh8 11. Rb1 g5 12.  dxe5 dxe5 13. b4 e4 14. Nd4 Nxd4 15. exd4 Nb6 16. c5 Nd5 17. Nxd5 Qxd5 18. Bxc7  Be6 19. Bd6 Rf7 20. Rc1 Qxa2 21. Rc2 Qb3 22. Qd2 f4 23. Bh5 Rd7 24. Re1 Qd5 25.  Qe2 Qxd4 26. Rd2 Qxb4 27. c6 Rxd6 28. Rxd6 Qxd6 29. Qxe4 Bg8 30. cxb7 Rb8 31.  Bf3 a5 32. Qf5 a4 33. Qc8 Qf8 34. Qc7 a3 35. Bg4 a2 36. Bc8 Rxb7 37. Bxb7 a1=Q  38. Rxa1 Bxa1 39. Be4 Bd4 40. Qd7 Qc5 {0-1 (40) Plaskett,H (2483)-Hunt,A (2411)  West Bromwich 2003}) 9. exd4 Nc6 10. c4 Qf6 $5) 7. h3 Qe8 8. c4 e5 9. Bh2 Qe7  10. Nc3 e4 11. Nd2 Re8 12. Nb5 Qd8 13. c5 a6 14. cxd6 axb5 15. dxc7 Qe7 16.  Bxb5 Bf8 17. Nc4 Qe6 18. Qc2 Qd5 19. a4 Re6 20. Rfc1 Ne8 21. Qc3 Nef6 22. Ne5  Nb6 23. Nc4 Nfd7 24. Qb3 Rf6 25. Bxd7 Nxd7 26. Qb5 Qf5 27. Bg3 Rfa6 28. d5 Qf6  29. a5 h5 1-0   

  [Event "Lloyds Bank op"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1991.??.??"]  [Round "8"]  [White "Franklin, Michael J"]  [Black "Vujatovic, Rajko"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A48"]  [WhiteElo "2285"]  [PlyCount "44"]  [EventDate "1991.??.??"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. e3 d6 5. Nbd2 O-O 6. Bc4 Nc6 7. c3 Qe8 8. e4  Bg4 9. Qc2 e5 10. dxe5 Nh5 11. Be3 Nxe5 12. Be2 f5 13. exf5 Bxf5 14. Qb3+ Be6  15. Qxb7 Nf4 16. Bxf4 Nd3+ 17. Kf1 Nxf4 18. Re1 Qa4 19. Qa6 Qc2 20. Bd1 Qxb2  21. g3 Rae8 22. Kg1 Qxd2 0-1   

      [Event "EU Union-ch Liverpool"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2006.??.??"]  [Round "9"]  [White "Dgebuadze, Alexandre"]  [Black "Gormally, Daniel"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A48"]  [WhiteElo "2525"]  [BlackElo "2510"]  [PlyCount "56"]  [EventDate "2006.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "CBM 114 ext"]   1. d4 Nf6 (1... d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. g3) 2. Nf3 (2. Bf4 g6 3.  Nc3 {Williams} d5 4. f3 c5 (4... Bg7 5. e4) 5. e4 dxe4 (5... cxd4 6. Qxd4 $14)  6. d5 {cf. Albin Williams extols this idea but it's got 0/3 on my database!}  exf3 7. Nxf3 Bg7) 2... g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. h3 d6 6. Be2 c5 7. c3 Be6 8.  O-O Qb6 9. Qc2 Nc6 10. Nbd2 Rac8 11. dxc5 Qxc5 12. Rfe1 d5 13. Qb3 Na5 14. Qa4  Qb6 15. b4 Nc6 16. Rac1 Bd7 17. Qb3 Rfe8 18. a3 e5 19. Bh2 Bf5 20. Bf1 Qd8 21.  Qa2 e4 22. Nd4 Nxd4 23. cxd4 g5 24. Rxc8 Bxc8 25. Qc2 g4 26. Qc7 Qxc7 27. Bxc7  gxh3 28. gxh3 Nh5 0-1   

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.

  [Event "Czech League"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1996.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Kozak, M."]  [Black "Vokac, M."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A41"]  [PlyCount "110"]  [EventDate "1996.??.??"]   1. Nf3 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Bf4 d6 4. e3 Nd7 5. h3 e5 6. Bh2 exd4 7. exd4 Ne7 8. Bd3  O-O 9. O-O Nf6 10. Nbd2 Bf5 11. Bxf5 Nxf5 12. Re1 Qd7 13. c3 h5 14. Ne4 Nxe4  15. Rxe4 Rae8 16. Qd3 Rxe4 17. Qxe4 Qb5 18. Qc2 Re8 19. Re1 Rxe1+ 20. Nxe1 Qe8  21. Kf1 Qe6 22. Qb3 Qe4 23. Qc2 Qe6 24. Qb3 Qe4 25. Qc2 Qc6 26. Qe2 Bh6 27. Nd3  a5 28. Bf4 Nxd4 29. cxd4 Bxf4 30. d5 Qc4 31. b3 Qd4 32. Nxf4 Qxf4 33. Qc2 Qd4  34. Kg1 Qc5 35. Qd2 c6 36. dxc6 bxc6 37. Kh2 d5 38. f4 Qb4 39. Qe3 Qe4 40. Qc1  d4 41. Kg3 Qe2 42. Qxc6 Qe3+ 43. Kh2 Qxf4+ 44. g3 Qe5 45. Qf3 h4 46. Kg2 Qxg3+  47. Qxg3 hxg3 48. Kxg3 Kf8 49. Kf3 f5 50. h4 Ke7 51. a3 Kd6 52. Kf4 Kd5 53. Kf3  Ke5 54. Kf2 Ke4 55. Ke2 f4 0-1   

  [Event "Wiesbaden"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1981.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Koch, R."]  [Black "Nunn, J."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A41"]  [PlyCount "70"]  [EventDate "1981.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "Starting Out: The Modern"]   1. d4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. Bf4 d6 4. e3 Nd7 5. Bc4 e5 6. dxe5 dxe5 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.  Ng5+ Ke7 9. Qd5 Nh6 10. Qe6+ Kf8 11. Qd5 c6 12. Ne6+ Ke7 13. Bg5+ Bf6 14. Qc4  Nb6 15. Bxf6+ Kxf6 16. Qh4+ Kxe6 17. Qxh6 Qf8 18. Qh4 Qe7 19. Qe4 Nd5 20. O-O  Kf7 21. Nd2 Kg7 22. c4 Bf5 23. Qf3 Nf6 24. e4 Rhd8 25. Qe3 Be6 26. Qc3 Rd4 27.  f4 Rad8 28. fxe5 Ng4 29. Nb3 Rxc4 30. Qg3 Rxe4 31. Rae1 Rxe1 32. Rxe1 Qb4 33.  h3 Rd3 34. Qh4 Qb6+ 35. Kh1 Rxh3+ 0-1   

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.
…

  [Event "d-Pawn Specials"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2011.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "London System"]  [Black "vs ...e6"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A47"]  [PlyCount "26"]   1. d4 Nf6 (1... e6 2. Nf3 c5 3. c3 Nc6 $1 4. Bf4 $6 cxd4 5. cxd4 Qb6 6. Qb3  Qxb3 7. axb3 Nf6 8. Nc3) 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4 b6 (3... c5 4. c3 (4. e3 cxd4 $1 5.  exd4 b6 6. Nbd2 Be7 7. h3 O-O 8. Bd3 Ba6 $5 9. Bxa6 Nxa6 10. O-O b5) 4... cxd4  (4... Nc6 $5 5. e3 b6 6. Bd3 Bb7 7. Nbd2 Nh5) 5. cxd4 b5 $5 (5... Qb6 $1)) 4.  e3 Bb7 5. Bd3 $1 (5. h3 $6 d6 $1 6. Nbd2 (6. c4 Ne4) 6... Nbd7 7. Bd3 g6 $1 8.  Qe2 Bg7 9. O-O O-O) 5... c5 6. c3 Be7 7. h3 d6 (7... cxd4 8. exd4 (8. cxd4 $1)  8... O-O 9. O-O Ba6 $1 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11. Qd3 Qc8 12. Nbd2 Qb7) 8. Nbd2 cxd4 9.  exd4 (9. cxd4 $1) 9... O-O 10. Qe2 a6 11. O-O Nbd7 12. Rfe1 Re8 (12... b5 13.  Rad1 Nb6 (13... Qc7 14. Bh2 Qc6)) 13. Rad1 Bf8 *   [/PGN]  He claims it's easier for Black to find ways to expand than for White.    Prie suggests replying to ...cxd4 with cxd4    If that's a risk Black can just play ...c5 and ...cxd4 very early:    1.d4 e6 2.Bf4 c5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.exd4    and if White insists on c3 then one line is to swap and play ...b5 (Martin, Cox).   1.d4 e6 2.Bf4 c5 3.c3 Nf6 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.exd4 b5    In fairness to Johanssen et al, they do point out an equalising line for Black with ...e6, which gains time by threatening to round up the Bishop:      1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Be7!     threat ...Nh5.  The only way to preserve the Bishop is      4.h3     but this is slow and gives Black time for development.       4...c5 5.e3 (5.c3 cxd4 6.cxd4 d5=) Qb6 5.Qc1 Nc6=     So, better is      2.Bf4 e6 3.e3     and it's likely to transpose to something we have seen already.  If White wants to block the exchange of dark-squared Bishops after ...d5/...Bd6 with Ne5, then Ngf3 has to happen fairly soon.    A line to be avoided is  [pgn autoplayMode=none]  [Event "SPICE Cup Open blitz"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2016.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Ashwin, Jayaram"]  [Black "Colas, Joshua"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A46"]  [WhiteElo "2465"]  [BlackElo "2335"]  [Annotator "Eric Rosen"]  [PlyCount "41"]  [EventDate "2016.??.??"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 b6 5. Nbd2 Bb7 6. Nc4 d5? 7. Nce5 c4 8. Ng5  Qe7 9. c3 h6 10. Ngxf7 Rg8 11. Be2 Nbd7 12. Nxd7 Kxd7 13. Qa4+ Kc8 14. Nd6+ Kd8  15. b3 cxb3 16. axb3 a5 17. Qb5 Qc7 18. Nc4 Qc8 19. Qxb6+ Ke8 20. Nd2 Qxc3 21.  Bb5+ {1-0 Black resigns.} 1-0   

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.

  [Event "Moscow ol (Women)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2018.??.??"]  [Round "10"]  [White "London System"]  [Black "1...e6"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "D00"]  [PlyCount "10"]  [EventDate "2018.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "EXT 1999"]   1. d4 e6 2. Bf4 $6 c5 $1 3. e3 (3. c3 Qb6 $1 4. Qb3 cxd4 (4... Qxb3 5. axb3  cxd4 6. cxd4 Nc6 7. e3) 5. Qxb6 axb6 6. cxd4 Nc6 7. e3 Nb4) 3... Qb6 $1 4. Nc3  Nf6 5. Nf3 a6 1/2-1/2   

Another trap:

  [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Enter New Game"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [PlyCount "23"]  [EventType "swiss"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Qb6 5. Nc3 $1 Qxb2 $2 6. Nb5 Na6 (  6... Nd5 7. Rb1 Qxa2 8. Ra1 Qb2 9. Bc4) 7. a3*   

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

  [Event "USA ch-U20 New York"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1983.??.??"]  [Round "2"]  [White "Benjamin, Joel"]  [Black "Wolff, Patrick G"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A80"]  [WhiteElo "2475"]  [BlackElo "2275"]  [PlyCount "119"]  [EventDate "1983.??.??"]  [SourceTitle "EXT 2004"]   1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Be7 5. h3 d6 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. c4 O-O 8. Nc3  Qe8 9. Bh2 Bd8 10. d5 Nb4 11. dxe6 Nxd3+ 12. Qxd3 Bxe6 13. Nd4 Ne4 $11 14. O-O  Bd7 15. Rad1 Qg6 16. Nce2 Kh8 17. b4 a5 18. f3 Ng5 19. Nf4 Qf7 20. b5 b6 21.  Nd5 Ne6 22. e4 f4 23. Ne2 Bg5 24. Qc3 Rad8 25. Nc1 Bf6 26. Nxf6 Qxf6 27. Qxf6  Rxf6 28. Ne2 Rf7 29. Rd5 Rdf8 30. e5 dxe5 31. Rxe5 Nc5 32. Rd1 Be6 33. Rd4 Rd7  34. Rxd7 Bxd7 35. Nxf4 c6 36. bxc6 Bxc6 37. Nd5 Rd8 38. Re7 Kg8 39. Be5 Bxd5  40. Bc7 Rd7 41. Rxd7 Nxd7 42. cxd5 a4 43. Kf2 Nf6 44. d6 Nd7 45. Ke3 b5 46. Kd4  b4 47. Kc4 b3 48. axb3 axb3 49. Kxb3 Kf7 50. Kc4 Ke6 51. Kd4 Nf6 52. g4 g6 53.  Kc4 Nd7 54. f4 h6 55. Kd4 Nf6 56. Kc5 Kd7 57. f5 gxf5 58. gxf5 Ne4+ 59. Kd5 Ng5  60. Bb6 1-0   

The Stonewall Dutch is unattractive after Bf4 ...

  [Event "Pan American"]  [Site "San Felipe"]  [Date "1998.10.30"]  [Round "5"]  [White "Serper, Grigory"]  [Black "Sequera Paolini, Jose"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A84"]  [WhiteElo "2535"]  [BlackElo "2340"]  [PlyCount "61"]  [EventDate "1998.10.25"]   1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 f5 4. Nf3 c6 5. Bf4 Nf6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Qc2  Ne4 9. g4 Qa5 10. Ke2 Kh8 11. Rhg1 Nd7 12. Rg2 Ndf6 13. Rag1 Ne8 14. Ne5 N4d6  15. c5 Ne4 16. f3 Nxc3+ 17. bxc3 Bf6 18. h4 Qd8 19. h5 Be7 20. gxf5 exf5 21. h6  Bf6 22. hxg7+ Nxg7 23. Bh6 Qe7 24. Bxg7+ Bxg7 25. Rxg7 Qxg7 26. Rxg7 Kxg7 27.  Qb1 Kh8 28. Qh1 Kg7 29. Qh4 Be6 30. Qe7+ Bf7 31. Bxf5 1-0   

...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.