Good stuff! I actually find the London quite interesting to play against, because I know what the immediate drawback of the system is (not fighting for an advantage in the centre) and working out how to punish that in practice feels like quite a good test of how well I understand centah! If you fancied doing more Understanding Your Openings videos, I reckon some stuff on dealing with the most popular systems (London, Stonewall, KIA) and other lemony amateur openings (Scandi etc) would probably go down fairly well. A lot of people play these things and people want to know what to do against them, but there doesn't seem to be much information out there because a lot of instructional stuff is about, you know, proper openings...
Yes, WHT does not pressure the center early, so BLK can play to equalize quickly with ...e5, or, with the center stable, he can delay castling and launch a kingside attack (since WHT castles early) after forcing an early exchange of knight for dark squared bishop. (Yes, WHT can open up the rook's file, but BLK can always opt to castle queenside if he forces the exchange before castling.)
As an Adult Improver, I jumped on the London train for a bit and I can say it only hurt my chess. It will stifle your chess growth and improvement. I can speak to this since it did deeply for me. I started improving a lot more when I left it behind. Everything stated in this video is great advice. I see the London or a variation of this by half the people in my club. Everyone has jumped on this. And after their book setup they really do not know how to progress. Thank you Andras for speaking the hard truths improvers need to hear.
You are so right...But to be honest this is the second biggest problem for most "non professional players including me in every opening and in every game. After few moves, let say after approximately ten moves when you and your opponent play solid moves an your and opponent's position has no clear weaknesses or even one weakness and you"somehow succesfully develop pieces" it is really hard to come with good plan what to do next.First one is of course don't lose pawns or even pieces...
@@petrambrus5963 You are right. An argument could be made to all openings are like this. Where I might think this is true after diving into other openings I can see there is a difference. Mainly with contesting the center. London goes a little bit against opening principles where you forgo fighting for central control a bit. But either way players have to find their style and what works for them. The London is popular and becoming a main opening which could end up as theory for main openings at some point since GMs are now playing it.
The Crab is fun, too. For Black or White. Look into the Drunken Master. Looks insane, but you can put people off their game. I've never played the Bongcloud.
I play the Spanish Inquisition. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst my weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.
Yes i agree.. I get soo frustrated playing the london.. Why no tactics in this opening? U can spend 30 mins on a position and u cant find anything.. But i think this opening works when u r in out of form or scared of a higher rated opponent..
I watched this video twice and the main points I got were, Don't play only one opening mindlessly, Fight for the center, Play aggressively up to your ability to do so, Learn openings that have greater potential for tactical variations. In this video, I was hoping you were showing the London's inherent exploitable weaknesses from a black perspective. Maybe that will be a future video?
Reading between the lines I think its best to select strong openings for white and black that cover the most structures possible then you get a broader understanding and build better pattern recognition which is what chess is at its core the recognition of patterns .
I totally agree with Andras, I played the London system for many years, and I can say it is boring to play all the time as it leads some dry style of playing. I now play dynamically with English, Vienna game, Catalan, and other things as white. Even if I lose with a new opening, I still enjoy more. If you are going to play a London system, at least push C4 instead of C3, or push back at the center in other ways, or try the Jobava London style, mix it up a lot. Try to take to advantage of any defensive play from black, so 2.C4 is a better response against say something like 1..a6
My thinking is that a player can always diversify his repertoire later (and of course he should diversify it at some point since the London does not really challenge BLK enough IF you are starting to face more competent players). I think is an advantage if a less experienced player can spend most of his time improving his endgame and middlegame play. That will take him far, and then he can learn more aggressive openings as he begins to face better players. I mean, let's face it, at lower levels of play, it hardly matters what opening you play since most games are decided by blunders. The biggest mistakes beginners make is spending too much time learning complicated openings. The opening is the most complex part of the game yet most new players are struggling with it from the beginning. I don't see why it would not be great if they can postpone that part of their development until later. More advanced players often seek an edge in the opening, but for weaker players it only needs to be a means of getting to a playable middle game.
I agree, I started playing london and as I've climbed from 100 to 1100 I still start with it, but as my knowledge and experience has grown I now deviate from it more often than not due to what my opponent does. I think it served me well early on and it's only boring if you completely blindly play the same moves every time. But I think (hope?) most people are like me and as they learn more, get better at tactics and start playing stronger opponents, start to see how to deviate from the basic setup based on what your opponent does. I'll grab the center if my opponent lets me, I'll push c4 when appropriate, I'll Bb5 pin, etc. I suppose that means I no longer play the london, but at least for me this felt like a very natural evolution and starting with the London in no way locked me into a rigid opening without learning anything.
I found channel today, Andras. I found it via an homepage that recommends the London for improving patzers like me. Well I never followed that particular advice, because in my humble opinion, the King's gambit is more fun than the London. That's why I am a 1.e4 player. I like high risk chess. I have to be myself, after all. You put words on my gut feeling about systems. I never do anything in chess and life that I do not understand. I do not like appeal to authority. Moreover, systems seem to be playing on autopilot. Against the London, I am not yet sure what to do however. If memory serves, Simon Williams claims the you will never be good if you play too many openings. The 1.e4 player is forced to play many. That's a curse and a blessing. Good to hear a master saying that variety is good not only for fun but for learning as well.
I'm a 50+ year old chess noob whose only relevant experience is coaching youth basketball. I was getting tired or replying to every random gambit after 1. e4 and tried the London and win rate was at 71% at my lowly ELO, but stopped. Why? I realized it's zone defense! Every youth basketball league doesn't let little kids play zone because they don't develop their skill. They make them play man-to-man (and also don't allow full court pressure, which I guess is analogous to gambits) so they learn basically skill of dribbling and shooting and the 2-man and 3-man game. I hated it after they allowed it (at too early an age in my opinion) because most coaches focused on winning rec league youth games and all played zone and pressed and the games. The kids got little out of it and the games were horrible to watch. Horrible to watch was also why zone used to be banned in the NBA. It's not banned now but still not used much because the players are too good (having grown up in a system where the zone was banned in their formative years!).
When I was lower rated, playing exclusively blitz games, I would play the London because it meant that I could smash out the opening quickly and try to avoid time trouble. I really quickly transitioned into a Bf4 queen's gambit as standard because I found it hard to generate offense from the London proper. Now I play Bg5 in the queen's gambit typically because I am higher rated and I better understand the value of pressuring the knight on f6 to control the centre. If you'd asked me "why is your bishop on f4?" I'd have told you that I just put it there because it looks alright on an open diagonal. Contrast that with "why is your bishop on g5?" The answer is that if I take or pin the knight on f6, it reduces his influence over E4 and D5, and if I ever want to establish two central pawns, it's going to be hard with E4 covered by his knight and his D pawn (and often his bishop) Since then I've stopped playing blitz almost altogether, and I naturally gravitated to E4 openings. I'm going to pick blitz back up again using it as a tool to expose myself to more opening variations - as recommended by Andras. Because that's probably a really quick way to help embed the different variations of, for eg. Ruy Lopez, so I'll be able to expose myself to more good and bad opening moves by playing more games in that position. On this last point, I won't play the London in blitz anymore because IT DOESN'T REALLY REQUIRE YOU TO LEARN OPENING VARIATIONS. Or, if it does. You're only going to learn them after move 10 or so, because you could probably play the first 10 moves without looking at your opponent's moves. Well done to anyone who read this entire rant.
@mxstoe Completely agree - I was more trying to make the point that the more I gravitated away from simple systems like the London, the deeper my understanding about the position became. Obviously I have a lot to learn! I am very far away from understanding all opening ideas in the QGD - but the less I played the London, the better I understood what I was doing
that reasoning is interesting not only for the london, but for "universal systems" of opening (colle zutertort, king's indian attack, hippopotamus etc)
Very good video. The point is that you need to think and understand each move, not just blindly play. Add the Colle to this discussion as well. It’s made chess quite boring too. Carlsen plays e4, d4, and c4 openings. He’s even played the Bird’s (1.f4) opening which borders on dubious. Carlsen once played the Trompowsky in the world championship. He’s looking for a middle game and endgame where he can get an advantage against other super grandmasters. You can’t compare to our games.
He has played f3 Kf2 vs So in blitz and regularly pulls out the Norwegian Rat against non-masters. Most amusing was the hand-and-brain game with Gustafsson (if I spelled his name right) in which he threw his rook stupidly, like, literally stupidly, on about move 7, into his opponent's castled position on g2. Half a game later he said, "this is so incredibly lost," and as the final seconds were ticking down, that he had shown absolutely no respect for his opponent and that a loss would be just punishment. The amateur dropped his flag about 2-3 moves from the mate. Point is, Carlsen does everything. If he pulls something out occasionally, that is no indication that it is to be recommended.
Hi Andras, I liked the video and as someone who started out with the London precisely as a way to cut down complexity and start playing games (I tend to get bogged down in preparation with strategy games and then actually play too few proper matches), but later migrated to e4 stuff, I'd have liked to see a bit more specifics in the video. I migrated away from the london because I never intended to only play 1 thing but I never understood it as weak/passive (but I'm a noob so that's normal). I'd have loved to see in this video more examples of the pitfalls of the London in the midgame, say how things go wrong when you have passive presence in the center, becasue as you said in the video at first glance it looks like the Londoner is going for the center, but in the wrong way, but in my inexperienced eyes they both look very similar so I can't tell immediately one way is worse. Could you maybe showcase some model games like you did on the other series for different ratings, like players doing the London at least moderately competently and then failing at some point because of the passivity of the opening (rather than just blundering a piece or something like that). I think that companion vid would really help cement this video with some concepts in action. Thanks again for the great content, keep it up.
London System is a very good way to introduce someone to have a playable chess, but its biggest strength is also its biggest drawback; its popular with every body. But as a beginner its pretty solid experience in building middlegame tactics and basic concepts. Its boring for some but it is super solid to those who understand it deeply, its pretty annoying to combat it if the one using it knows the concepts fully, it is pretty hard to break.
Thanks for this video. I've never played the London, despite it being so popular, as there was something that didn't appeal to me about it. You managed to articulate it perfectly (and more, of course). I'm finally diving in to trying to learn some opening theory after years of just tying to apply the basic principals, and this video has helped answer a few questions. Love your work. AjC
I have the same experience like you man. I start to learn some openings and more theory just now, because otherwise I will get killed quickly nowadays. Almost everyone play openings better in these days than five or ten years ago. But I never had this bad habit to learn London.
Totally agree with your points Andras! Glad I (recently) found your channel. I've been building my opening repertoire based on a couple of my favourite players, all my games are some kind of QGD, English or Réti. On rare occasions, but only as a surprise weapon, I can play the Torre Attack, which luckily is at least more combative than the London (especially with an early N.e5).
London is basically playing the QGD from black, but with the queen's bishop freed. Granted, it cedes the advantage of playing white, but it's no worse than playing as black. Most games at that level, the advantage of playing white doesn't mean as much as playing a solid game. But the main point of the video isn't about whether the opening is solid. The point it that it teaches bad habits and avoids expanding your chess skill, and that is a very valid criticism.
I understand the spirit of this but considering only the worst possible case of London system games and players is a bit of a straw man argument. For example the fact you can play the same moves without reacting to what black does is just not true. Also if you study only one opening you are disregarding all the other ones no matter which one you pick, so it's not a London-specific issue.
You could argue that the london means you don't see other lines through transposition, but the london is most recommended to beginners, who aren't going to see any theory at all no matter what they play.
Did anyone watch Simon Williams videos about London, saying that it can be a really aggressive opening? Now, I am not sure if I wanna continue playing it or not..
I remember doing an experiment half a year ago against 2000-2100's on lichess where I would push 4 pawns up 1 square against a london player for the first 4 moves. Against 5 different players none of them knew how to play in the center and HALF of them didn't even understand the concept of pawn breaks. Easiest way to beat a lower rated london player---> just fart around until you're in a position you know they have never seen before. Works every time.
Would playing the London (especially with early h4-h5) against the Dutch be an exception? It's a rare opening and having a solid line + clear idea prepared sounds more attractive to me, than digging deep into the early e4 lines. What's your take on that approach?
Maybe I do want to learn to utilize 30 different pawn structures. Maybe I do want memorize theoretical lines, 15 moves deep, for all of a dozen different openings. Maybe I do want to absorb hundreds of lessons, and spend countless hours practicing, so that one day maybe I will be capable of playing chess, and not a system. In the meantime, something I can learn quickly and use effectively against other players like myself who are just starting out sounds pretty good.
Let people play what they want. Kasparov and Carlsen have both played it. Enough said. Not everyone has hundreds of hours to learn 30 moves of theory in the Ruy Lopez etc.
@@happyhornet1000 you clearly haven't watched the video. Kasparov and Carlsen never used it as their main weapon. Only play it once in a while. The biggest point is that if you want to improve it is better to have more variation and ambitious openings that actually fight for the center. This doesn't mean you will have to memorize 30 moves of theory.
As a London player, I strongly believe in the famous saying by the late great Lee Jun Fan: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
London System is a very good way to introduce someone to have a playable chess, but its biggest strength is also its biggest drawback; its popular with every body. But as a beginner its pretty solid experience in building middlegame tactics and basic concepts. Its boring for some but it is super solid to those who understand it deeply, its pretty annoying to combat it if the one using it knows the concepts fully, it is pretty hard to break.
So do you know 300 computer lines in the London and at least 20 grandmaster games by heart? Or are you just lazy and play the same BS over and over in blitz
Yeah and then you find that one type of kick does not work with that opponent so you wish you had learnt how to do the other 9,999 other kicks even if only once so you could at least have a chance of effecting something. In other words learnt the many different ways you could kick so at least you understand combat a bit more thoroughly
In one of your videos when you faced London and then played the same opponent with white he played the Caro Kann. Then you said something like "obviously London player plays caro-kann". As a long-time caro-kann player and adult improver, I'd like to know your opinion on 1. e4 c6. Is it a bad opening for improving players? The only viable openings against 1. e4 I could even consider are Sicilian and 1. e4 e5. Both, however, require studying enourmous amounts of theory which I do not have time to work on, therefore I stick with what I've been playing for years. I play 1. c4 as white for the same reason - I've always been playing this opening and switching to 1. e4 seems too much. I've almost never played e4 and it would be tough to learn it from scratch. Do you think that maybe going for something completely new makes sense just to get better understanding of different positions? I am also thinking about it from tournament perspective. Many youngsters and more experience players would destroy me before I could grasp a completely new repertoire. I think that sticking with 1. c4 and 1. e4 c6 is just safer. What are your thoughts?
@@Unscripted9 He said that KIA and London are boring because you play the same set up.Yeah Alireza is so boring.Any opening until a move is boring if you know the theory.He could say in what can help you the London(strategic thinking/positional play in closed structures,attack the king side in closed structures,endgames,etc and then say that if you want something more sharp and aggressive play something else but he choiced to act like a hater of the hype and to talk about the "beauty" of opening theory and same bull!@3.While someone improving will understand according to his level to play more sharp openings or unsual openings.Alireza choice unpopular openings because he know that his opponents have study them less.This logic in corrent in any level.Also in openings there is no principal understanding you know them or not.Because if the opponent know his stuff with b6 as first move for example,even if you control the center with normal moves you will have problem.
Dunno what Andras thinks, but one thing in favour of the Caro is that you at least get a decent range of middlegame structures depending on how white sets up - you can potentially see Carlsbad or IQP in the exchange, French structures in the advance variations, and the actual Caro structure in the classical Caro.
This guy doesn't understand intelligence and common sense. Caro-Kann can often lead to similar structures and play like you would experience as white in the London system. Similar pawn structures, themes, and such. His hate towards these two openings only shows how butthurt he probably is by getting beaten by what he considers dry and "not chess" - if it is so simple and rudimentary, why not just dismantle it in 10moves...oh wait, that's because there actually is a lot of interesting theory behind every opening...
Great explanation, makes much more sense to play the board and not a series of prescribed moves. I'll put this opening to rest and focus on more thoughtful and less passive openings. Appreciate your thoughts!
After coming back to chess after a couple of decades, I've enjoyed the London. Sure, I've put some work into different variations - including a lot of Jobava variations - but it serves me well. This allows me to spend time on my black repertoire - Dutch and Caro-Kann. When I feel my choices there are solid enough, I'll add e4 back... Wesley So's lifetime repertoires are waiting. Using what little I remember of the Najdorf and Gründfeld 30 years afterwards would just be begging for pain.
I have never played the London once in thousands online games. I despise the opening. Still i spent too much time playing chess to reach 2100 online rating and i didn't get anything worthwhile out of it. If someone doesn't have too much time for chess the London opening is a concrete option. You won't become good at chess but you will be able to play some casual games without self destruction in the opening.
Wonderful video explaining why the London isn't mainstream. I have recently been playing the Kings Indian Defense as Black against D4. I like the themes in it with striking back in the center to prepare for a kingside attack or possibly queenside expansion, but now wonder is it detrimental to play it? The intent of the KID doesn't seem to be as passive as it is in the London, but it being a sort of system I could see it being flawed. I know there are subtitles depending on move order like if they play early e5 but overall but are there other fundamental differences besides the passive nature?
I'm just starting out and saw your other video on choosing opening lines (the amateur's mind) and didn't fully grasp your thoughts on the London, but it sure is clear on this video. Not playing the London is like eating your vegetables. I was about to launch myself headfirst into the London, but if I'm being honest with myself I want to improve long term, and I do enjoy variety. Thank you for keeping it real. #adultimprover #beginner #oldguy
@@ChessCoachAndras okaay coach👐👐 thanks , i really like your mindset Iam a colle system zukertort player But i always knew that was temporaly in reality i wanna play the queen's gambit in the future an enjoy all the diferent positions and pawn structure. And now i am so much exating about make that transicion just because of your videos🙌 So thank youuu!!
What opening/s (or just ideas) do you suggest beginners learn instead? At the true beginner level, playing online, E4 openings get you targeted by cheesy gambits really often. So aside from the hours every week you suggest to spend learning openings that’s also time to look up and learn refutations for the popular gambits... is there a better way?
Of course there is. As a beginner you most likely shouldn't just blindly memorize openings by heart. Note that I didn't say you shouldn't improve your opening play. Let me explain. First you should know the opening principles, developing pieces, trying not to move the same one twice, controlling the center and connecting the rooks, etc. That is the basic thing. Yes, you will be hit by gambits from time to time and you will lose some games because of it. Don't be afraid to lose, because you just have to lose some games to improve. What to do then? First, you should analyze all your games (you should play long games because those are the best to improve). As a beginner this means (at first) identifying losing blunders you and your opponent possibly made during the game. Novice players make blunders very often. Apart from that, you can look at the engine in combination with the opening database and see where you could make an improvement in a line you actually play and that happened during your game. For instance I had a game in Najdorf as black and the opponent went for 6. Bg5 which is main line. I played ...e5 and was uncomfortable afterwards, because soon enough his knight was able to infiltrate to d5 and he was much better and won this game. I saw afterwards that after Bg5, black plays e6 in most cases instead of e5 in that line and has much better win loss percentage as well. Therefore I will not play e5 after Bg5 again. :) That way you will gradually improve your play and opening play along with it. For instance, I am playing for a year and I never studied openings actively (my top rapid chess.com rating is somewhat over 1520, and I am currently just shy of 1 500 so I am not great, but I am starting to not be terrible). I did however look at the database and I did analyze my games and looked for improvements in the opening. In the future, I am sure I will make some pgn files for separate opening variations and learn them more actively, but up to my current level, that wasn't necessary at all. I even noticed that I am in many cases better in the opening or at least equal, so in most cases opening play is not something that is the deciding factor on my level. Anyway the best advice I have for you is to not be afraid to lose games (it is fine not to feel great afterwards, I know I don't :) ), but try to learn something from your losses. Sorry for the long post by the way. :)
@@nklristic Thanks for the reply, no apologies needed at all for the length as my reply is a little bit long too. :) I am not really asking for myself. It's a genuine question to him because he delineates why he thinks the London is "bad" but he doesn't quite describe a specific alternative (e.g. order of doing things, specific alternative openings to start learning) for beginners, who probably comprise a bulk of the people playing this opening and may be stumbling upon this video. You mention not studying openings until being in the 1500s, and the video seems to me to be advocating the opposite: yes it's hard, but to be good at chess is to accept that you have to set aside time for studying openings and opening theory. That's also part of where my question is coming from, there's a lot of information out there for beginners and it can be overwhelming and confusing if you're just starting from learning how the pieces move. Because on one hand they are told not to study openings and just the principles until they're higher rated, on the other if they want to study (maybe because they're getting dunked on constantly at the lower levels, even more now because of the recent super-high popularity of chess and videos about cheesy unsound gambits/tricks) they might be lost on where to start. The London is something I've seen recommended by some of the most popular content creators online for chess, so I understand why they would want to start there (hopefully with the idea of learning more as they go)...and might be bummed to be told it's for people who "don't want to get better at chess" without a clear alternative spelled out. I just wondered what his thoughts were for self-taught beginners on making a plan of study, in what order to tackle things, what openings to start with that will set them up for success later on etc. Hopefully even if he doesn't reply in the comments, that's a nice nugget of a video idea. I know a few people just starting to get into chess now and it would be nice to have something to point them to. :) (Personally, to their credit, I think people learning the London are already showing more willingness to learn to "actually" play chess, by learning an opening compared to a fair number of users online just out there spamming only gambits and tricks. I know someone who is starting from 400-500, not playing blitz, and they're getting hit multiple times everyday with users just attempting some type of Stafford gambit or whatever...)
The more you play against those cheesy gambits the better you get at refuting them. I’m a deliberate e5 player and I often hope I get the garbage gambits thrown at me. Halloween gambit? Yes please, give me the free piece!
1... Nf6 players frustrated by facing the London should look into the Old Indian defense. It looks to force dxe5 and basically convert a d-pawn game into an e-pawn game. In my experience, London players respond very poorly when knocked out of their comfort zone in this way.
@@ChessCoachAndras Often they bring out the Bishop first, so 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d6. But 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 is perfectly playable and London merchants will usually plough ahead with 3. ... Bf4 anyway. 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d6, 3. Nf3 Nbd7 4. e3 c6 5. e3 Qc7 with 6...e5. It melts their brains! Edit:fixed the mangled variation to add in 3... Nbd7
@@ahahaha3505 I don't know what level of players you are talking about, but this is a rather poor setup, and as long as they don't trade on e5 (why would they?)White is doing better than in the majority of the London lines. Btw this e5 plan is super easy to carry out with the g6 Bg7 lines, which is far better!:)
Very nice video with good points. But I wonder what you think about the Rossolimo/Moscow variations on the Sicilian, from White´s perspectives? Are these good to play for the improving player, or do you say, «Play the Open Sicilian, dude!» ?
I've been working on the London....as black! It's become so common online that I wanted to put some energy into finding real weapons against it. You can play for basic equality, and the game will be fine, but you can also get some fantastic positions by going for the center with 3...c5. If they play their moves robotically, black gets a better center for free. If they take, black will have safe pressure and a lead in development. One of the big arguments for playing the London is that it avoids prep.....au contrare mon frere.
@@keedt And this again begs the question: If someone is going to prep against you anyway, why take this dull, useless position? You could play 1.c4 2.g3, remain too cool for the main lines, and still get a neat set of positions with white. While we're at it, the stonewall attack and KIA are two others I see beginners learning, and they're both terrible first openings. The stonewall is trash when you get to 1500, so it's just a glass ceiling...and, per Andras, you get the same structure in every game. The KIA has the opposite problem: It's great at an intermediate level, but we can't teach beginners to give away the center and swing for the fences; that's animal abuse!
London for white, Caro Kan for black, easy system, you just have to know some traps your opponent might play. The reason you want yo play other system is because you want to enjoy watching games played in other system.
There's nothing wrong with the London. London system bashing is just a waste of time in my view. The avoidance of understanding chess is the problem. Plenty of people who understand chess at a high level employ the London from time to time. The problems Andras points out shouldn't be confused with playing the London at all. He's just against monotony, oversimplification of chess, and avoidance of learning due to laziness. None of that needs to be associated with the London and it's overly simplistic to do so. There. That's why I completely disagree with the primary message of this video. Bashing the London is just as much of a "fad" as adopting the opening as one's primary opening. Neither side is thinking constructively. Of course, Andras is right about learning chess properly and about those who play the London because they don't want to learn anything else, but just bashing the London is like saying such unqualified nonsense as "playing Blitz is bad for you." It IS bad for you... but only at a certain level and if it causes you to learn bad habits. The London *can* be bad for you too, but it needn't be, if you approach it properly. For god's sake, Eric Rosen and other high rated players use it regularly and even Magnus has used it from time to time. Of course, Rosen doesn't play it as a static "system." Naroditsky regularly employs the Jobava London... but, the word "London" certainly doesn't scare them away. Liam Quan Li has an excellent Chessable course on how to play the London at a high level. On a personal note, I'm primarily an e4 player, so I'm not defending "my opening," although I did play it for some time. I love the bishop's opening, Italian, Ruy, Vienna, Scotch, Morra, Grand Prix, to the open sicilians, etc., but I play d4 and the London from time to time. Heck, I sometimes play the Colle or even a Stone Wall with some success and these may even be simpler than the London in some versions. It's about understanding and adaptation to your opponent's moves. If your opponent doesn't adapt properly vs the Colle, Stone Wall, or the London, they can be extremely venomous!
Fair enough, I'm doing chessable free courses jobava, french and king's Indian defense. I was 1768 last month then low 1600 as I'm trying more variations but my first goal is 1800s on chess.com.
Awesome video as always Andras! Can you do a video discussing why you also think that playing the closed Sicilian is not good for improvement? I recall you saying that improving players should only play the Open Sicilian
I disagree with that, you Can also play it in a completly different way for example with Long(or no) castles and atack with g4, h4 or Stoff like that, there are many atacking and instructive Games in the London, if you don‘t play it that boring like in the Video
The title should be "Whats wrong with playing the London all the time?" I play the London occasionally (still play other openings) and i dont get bored when i play it. I especially play it against a tactically minded and tactically superior player. Also the London is great for those who have very little time to study or even play the game. It is still would remain enjoyable for that reason.
The London is a very good and interesting opening for white. Hikaru Nakamura, one of the best chess players of the world, and Levy Rozman (gotham chess), recommend it as one of the best openings for beginners, intermediate players and grandmasters (youtube: opening tier list for beginners, intermediate players, gms). It is also the favourite opening of IM Eric Rosen. You can find a high quality content of videos on youtube, where he shows many of the tricky lines of London (Rosen teaches Botez for instance). You can and should play this opening highly versatile. (It is completely clear that you should also play other openings to understand different kinds of positions. No player ever will only play one opening in his life.) In the playlist of Hanging pawns, who puts much effort into his videos, to London he shows many ways how to play it against different setups. Another fan of this opening is NM Robert Ramirez (chess lesson 58, 62 - best opening for white). Stockfish also likes the opening - you have a good position and are positive in all lines. London is versatile, has many attacking opportunities and should be studied by every chess player. A great help are the videos I mentioned above.
@@chess.shyman Because it _isn’t_ a good opening. If you think you get better at chess by learning cheap tricks and simple strategies to stay alive, not to mention always be on the backfoot right off the opening then thats a nono. Also, the biggest problem isn’t even that, it’s that you ALWAYS play the same structures, so you aren’t learning proper chess. The symmetrical and Carlsbad pawn structures are the only thing you are gonna learn, and even there your pieces are poorly placed for the structure. Learn proper openings that give you a fighting chance and most importantly a variety of structures. Of course, if you don’t want to improve in chess then system openings are fine, but if you want serious improvement, forget about them.
@@microitos9754 First of all, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. he has to check his sources, (which he doesn't have because he's hungry for videos and monetization). The second thing, there is something called 'playing with black' in chess. This guy wants you to spend 97423749872349823749832749823749823749832730947239087423980472390749823749820367459286492364936472364782 years learning all the 1947092137459832465923758029542372567896075667439075094375 variations of the open Sicilian. You're just gonna repeat what he said? 'OOOH NO STRUCTURE NO OPEN POSITION NONONONO'. There are some more structures I can name. The double 'b' pawn structure in Bf5 positons.(1.d4 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bf4 Bf5 The double 'd' pawn structure in the bf5/chigorin positions. The berkes(h) structure in the mainline London. The c3-d4-e4/Nc3-e4 structure in the KID.(Technically it's still the london) The Stonewall Structure. The Chigorin structures. THE LITERAL MAIN LINE OF THE LONDON IS A DOUBLE C PAWN AND ISOLATED A PAWN SAC? WTF THIS IS UTTER Stupidity this idiot is talking about. And the beauty of the London is that it's good against everything. I don't ever know why you call that a bad thing. It like 5 problems 1 solution, but here the problems are KID, QID, Tarrasch ,benoni , Ba6 lines, etc etc. All of these have different way of playing. oh wait. I already forgot to mention other lines like e4 in the Steinitz counter gambit. 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d5 3.e3 c5 4.Nd2 Nc6 5.Ngf3 Qb6 6.dxc5 Qxb2. These positions offer a general initiative if black doesn't know what he's doing and if he does then these positions are generally equal. In reference to 3:54, the answer is a google search. You learn to do it in 5 mins, serves the rest of your life, allows you to discover some amazing stuff, whether behind a paywall or not. but it also allows you to find some braindead guy ranting 20 mins about a perfectly fine opening for improvers and encouraging them to waste time studying theory they will never use anyway. for example: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5 12. g5 b4 13. Ne2 Ne8 14. f4 a5 15. f5 a4 16. Nbd4 exd4 17. Nxd4 b3 18. Kb1 bxc2+ 19. Nxc2 Bb3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Na3 So what you're saying basically is that 'Im greedy and don't do any research for my videos' in like a 20 minute long video. All im saying is this guy is greedy, doesn't want to research, wants to people to lose, and etc etc.
This is very similar to what I tell my students when I am making them write code instead of use a stupid tool! If you want to actually learn something well, you have to work it out yourself and learn to deal with all the bumps and hiccups
Watch his video "amateurs mind #3" he explains that there. That video is regarding this same issure, and then later in the video he gives opening recommendations. Highly highly suggest you watch that. I've watched it several times I think it's necessary. That changed my view of chess. In conclusion he recommends: Queen's gambit, slav, semi-slav, nimzo-indian, ruy lopez, sicilians (not kalashnikov), scotch opening (not gambit) etc. He also explains WHY he recommends them, 1. they're flexible, 2. slav for instance literally teaches chess principles, main line is logical in that sense.
1600ish on chess.com here. I'm a pretty strong opening player for my level; I get a lot of positions that are objectively good and which I can sense are good, and I blunder at least half of them away or can't execute the attack. I'm also not good enough at moderately slow positions. If it wasn't the case that I was pretty versed in openings, wouldn't it make sense to play the London to skip through 10-15 moves and focus on everything that comes after? I've had the sense for a while that I would approach 2000 FIDE if I could play endgames reliably. Also, you level the same criticisms against the king's indian attack that you level here against the London, or c4 g3 even?
I can tell this is going to be a spicy video. As someone who is always on the Black side of the London I welcome it. Much easier game than playing against the mainlines and since its so common I'm more booked up than if they actually met my Semi Slav with theory.
I can relate to this so much as a Semi-Slav player, every time I face the London I’m like: “thank you for the easy game and I guess I’m going to take the center if you don’t mind”, I actually know a lot more theory of the London for black rather than the actual semi-slav theory
So, you completely succesfully convinced me. But now I am left without an opening for white after the London bringing me to 1200! Any recommendation to fill the void you left behind? :D
Greetings...Hi Chico - I use to play this all the time, a few years ago, when I was learning. I did not understand close or open games then... ( I have been away from Chess for app 6 years/playing again at present time). My rating is a 950/1000...so please accept my limited knowledge. I do like playing a more open game, and most certainly want to learn "Correct" Chess. Not being limited to...the above Opening (I do not play this now...I find it not enjoyable). Thanks Chico's/Coach/Andras.
I completely agree with you. I started chess not that long ago. I played the London and got stuck at 600-700 elo. Once I decided to stop playing this opening, within 3 months I became 1100 rating. When I played the London I had no idea what I was doing. I learned the concepts you mention when I started playing things like the Scandinavian and Queen's gambit. The London is a terrible thing for a beginner.
Amazing video. A true service. Awesome to have all those arguments we know but this time from someone who knows much better what hes talking about! Thanks Andras!
As white, I play E4 openings (Vienna, Italian) in matches where I feel like the time controls allow me enough time to think as long as I want about each move (basically any game 5 mins and longer). I am winning a high percentage of games with those time controls, but struggle when I have under 3 mins to play because I often run into time difficulty. I was considering using the London for faster blitz and bullet matches precisely because it seems like the opening moves are practically on autopilot which could save me time for more calculation in the mid and end game. Is it a bad idea to have the London as a situational option? If so, what opening(s) would you recommend for blitz and bullet games?
Colle is crappy, yes. Stonewall is also crappy. KID not really crappy at all, Hikarus best considered game ever played was a KID, but beginners should probably not play the KID since it just abandons the center and knights look at first glance awful, not something we should teach beginners to play.
London system is a perfect opening base, what do you mean not real chess? Its modern and havent had time to develop into a classic. If it was called the morphy system i bet this discussion would be different. Heres my suggestion: if you want to be good at math, start by learning 1+1. "Its not real math". Well yes it is, even when you master quantum. EVERY opening can transition into other openings. For instance. Get used to the london, then go c4 instade of c3 (for exemple when the opponent responds to bishop to c4 with bishop to f5). Put the knight on c3. Viola, you have started a perfect transition (with middlegame and pawn structure experience) into queens gambit accepted/declined. Also easy transition to slav as black. Then you experiment with playing the london with bishop on c1, viola french defense. Ive also seen you bash the scandinavian defense. Same there. Similar "simple" structures appears almost EVERY time. Then when you get tired of it you realize you have saved tons of time studying theory about the karo cann. Cause there are so many similarities and themes between middlegame pawnstructures (which is basically everything sound understanding of what opening theory is?) Life changing advise in 5 minutes? Creativity =simplifying. On another note, your videos are usually very good. Ive learned alot from them. Thank you sir ;) You are a provacative teacher, those are usually the best. Thanks. All the best.
You sound like a very intelligent person so I am rather confused as to why you chose to not to understand the main point of this video, which was not to bash the London but explain why it is an opening that endorses really bad habits. Your maths analogy is fully wrong for this reason too, because the simplicity is not what is wrong with The London. It is the mindset behind it. (which is that it is trying to tell you that 1+1 is all there is in chess). All this said, I appreciate your comment.
@@ChessCoachAndras And you are clearly not a very intelligent person because he understood your video and gave very good points why your hatred is completely wrong and unfounded. London is not some parrot regurgitating sounds it hears, every move matters and you will lose quickly if you don't respect it. Some bully beatdown is in order here, Rosen vs Bozen the Clown, making an example of a fool throwing rocks at openings he doesn't understand. Would be hilarious watching a live stream of attempts to justify why London is basic and harmful for chess players whilst getting butchered by Jobava. Magnus Carlsen is an example of an actually intelligent person who truly loves chess and respects every opening enough to learn it and truly understand it - and surprise, surprise, he's had crushing victories with London. On the plus side, it's a real-time saver showing your hand pre-flop, so people looking to learn chess can easily identify what you can or can't offer.
@@ChessJourneyman Of course I am famously unintelligent, but someone who judges me at something I have been doing for 20 years is clearly a mastermind. Bringing up Carlsen in this shows how little you and the other critiques of the video (or rather the critiques of my persona) bothered to actually grasp what I am saying (Watch again and try to comprehend,). On that note Carlsen wins games and produces masterpieces with literally any opening.. A MasterChef making an amazing omelette would apparently convince you that that dish is the the crown of fine dining. Also, You have made up your mind way before you watched any of my videos, otherwise you would not say purely insulting things like what "I can and can't offer pre flop." (According to thousands I can offer a lot by the way) Oh , final note, I did beat Rosen, on stream, in the London, (you can find it if you care to look instead of just offloading your anger) but it does not prove anything to anyone who actually thinks. The same way how it would not have meant anything if he had won. Because this video was about improving players. But , of course, as stated above, you chose to hate instead of paying attention to the details of the message of this video.
I know you like a sport anology. In rock climbing there is a way of holding a grip called a closed crimb (say the London grip). The reasons why it's so populair is because you can use it for almost any hold and you're climbing level goes up quickly in the beginning. And the main reason is that it's comfortable. It's your grip (aka your London opening) you know best and to let it go means you have to try and fail with other more difficult grips and dropping your climbing level along with it. Eventually you have to unlearn this habit in order to grow in overall skill.
Very well explained , this system is not my style , but looking back to how many wild games i lost !!! , i could almost sympathize 😆with people sticking only to the London system !! in their games
I was introduced to chess with e4 openings which has me opening based on reacting to black and playing out from there, I was thinking of adopting a d4 opening, what's a good d4 opening outside of the london? [for reference:] My E4 is mainly Prefer Italian/Piano - Full Center if allowed full center, Advance in French - e5 in Alekhine, Decline (Nc3) in Petrov, Accept Scandi then chase queen with Nc3. knights, bishops, castle as soon as possible when safe to do so.
Came for a new perspective on the London, left with a new perspective on life.
:):):)
Same bro same
whew, so true
An Andras specialty! 🧠
I wish Andras would quit holding back and tell us how he really feels about the London.
idgaf how he feels about it, i only care what is wrong with it. More chess, less philosophy
My first time seeing this guy, he's so blunt, no sugar coating, real AF, also well spoken dude. wanna see more of his stuff. Lol
"that's a cold shower baby"
This channel is one of the best, if not the best, channels about chess. It is like having a coach at home.
@@Grandcapi Thanks mate, appreciate the kind words!
Hey mate. sorry for not responding sooner! Glad you like the content!
That’s the Hungarian way, bro
Good stuff! I actually find the London quite interesting to play against, because I know what the immediate drawback of the system is (not fighting for an advantage in the centre) and working out how to punish that in practice feels like quite a good test of how well I understand centah!
If you fancied doing more Understanding Your Openings videos, I reckon some stuff on dealing with the most popular systems (London, Stonewall, KIA) and other lemony amateur openings (Scandi etc) would probably go down fairly well. A lot of people play these things and people want to know what to do against them, but there doesn't seem to be much information out there because a lot of instructional stuff is about, you know, proper openings...
I really like your idea for future opening videos, I hope this comment gets more upvotes so it is taken more seriously
Yes, WHT does not pressure the center early, so BLK can play to equalize quickly with ...e5, or, with the center stable, he can delay castling and launch a kingside attack (since WHT castles early) after forcing an early exchange of knight for dark squared bishop. (Yes, WHT can open up the rook's file, but BLK can always opt to castle queenside if he forces the exchange before castling.)
I was a Novice who was using systems to avoid hard work. You explained the beauty of chess better than anything I've ever read. Thank you.
My pleasure and welcome onboard!
As an Adult Improver, I jumped on the London train for a bit and I can say it only hurt my chess. It will stifle your chess growth and improvement. I can speak to this since it did deeply for me. I started improving a lot more when I left it behind. Everything stated in this video is great advice. I see the London or a variation of this by half the people in my club. Everyone has jumped on this. And after their book setup they really do not know how to progress. Thank you Andras for speaking the hard truths improvers need to hear.
You are so right...But to be honest this is the second biggest problem for most "non professional players including me in every opening and in every game. After few moves, let say after approximately ten moves when you and your opponent play solid moves an your and opponent's position has no clear weaknesses or even one weakness and you"somehow succesfully develop pieces" it is really hard to come with good plan what to do next.First one is of course don't lose pawns or even pieces...
@@petrambrus5963 You are right. An argument could be made to all openings are like this. Where I might think this is true after diving into other openings I can see there is a difference. Mainly with contesting the center. London goes a little bit against opening principles where you forgo fighting for central control a bit. But either way players have to find their style and what works for them. The London is popular and becoming a main opening which could end up as theory for main openings at some point since GMs are now playing it.
In response to 3:54, a good pickup line could fit the mold.
Thanks, good one!
Any examples?
The London sucks. That's why I play the Bongcloud.
Good choice. Very few players prepare for the Bongcloud.
The Crab is fun, too. For Black or White. Look into the Drunken Master. Looks insane, but you can put people off their game. I've never played the Bongcloud.
At least you have to pay attention with the Bongcloud
Did anybody else get an ad of Eric Rosen selling his London course on this video?
I play the Spanish Inquisition.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst my weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.
I hope this video reaches out to people since there's a lot of misinformation out there!
Yes i agree.. I get soo frustrated playing the london.. Why no tactics in this opening? U can spend 30 mins on a position and u cant find anything..
But i think this opening works when u r in out of form or scared of a higher rated opponent..
I watched this video twice and the main points I got were, Don't play only one opening mindlessly, Fight for the center, Play aggressively up to your ability to do so, Learn openings that have greater potential for tactical variations.
In this video, I was hoping you were showing the London's inherent exploitable weaknesses from a black perspective. Maybe that will be a future video?
Reading between the lines I think its best to select strong openings for white and black that cover the most structures possible then you get a broader understanding and build better pattern recognition which is what chess is at its core the recognition of patterns .
Coach, your candor energized me! I’m off to play the Spanish!
I totally agree with Andras, I played the London system for many years, and I can say it is boring to play all the time as it leads some dry style of playing. I now play dynamically with English, Vienna game, Catalan, and other things as white. Even if I lose with a new opening, I still enjoy more. If you are going to play a London system, at least push C4 instead of C3, or push back at the center in other ways, or try the Jobava London style, mix it up a lot. Try to take to advantage of any defensive play from black, so 2.C4 is a better response against say something like 1..a6
Great content coach! Thanks for your sincerity and no BS approach for chess improvement
My thinking is that a player can always diversify his repertoire later (and of course he should diversify it at some point since the London does not really challenge BLK enough IF you are starting to face more competent players). I think is an advantage if a less experienced player can spend most of his time improving his endgame and middlegame play. That will take him far, and then he can learn more aggressive openings as he begins to face better players. I mean, let's face it, at lower levels of play, it hardly matters what opening you play since most games are decided by blunders. The biggest mistakes beginners make is spending too much time learning complicated openings. The opening is the most complex part of the game yet most new players are struggling with it from the beginning. I don't see why it would not be great if they can postpone that part of their development until later. More advanced players often seek an edge in the opening, but for weaker players it only needs to be a means of getting to a playable middle game.
Hear hear
I agree, I started playing london and as I've climbed from 100 to 1100 I still start with it, but as my knowledge and experience has grown I now deviate from it more often than not due to what my opponent does. I think it served me well early on and it's only boring if you completely blindly play the same moves every time. But I think (hope?) most people are like me and as they learn more, get better at tactics and start playing stronger opponents, start to see how to deviate from the basic setup based on what your opponent does. I'll grab the center if my opponent lets me, I'll push c4 when appropriate, I'll Bb5 pin, etc. I suppose that means I no longer play the london, but at least for me this felt like a very natural evolution and starting with the London in no way locked me into a rigid opening without learning anything.
I found channel today, Andras. I found it via an homepage that recommends the London for improving patzers like me. Well I never followed that particular advice, because in my humble opinion, the King's gambit is more fun than the London. That's why I am a 1.e4 player. I like high risk chess. I have to be myself, after all. You put words on my gut feeling about systems. I never do anything in chess and life that I do not understand. I do not like appeal to authority. Moreover, systems seem to be playing on autopilot. Against the London, I am not yet sure what to do however. If memory serves, Simon Williams claims the you will never be good if you play too many openings. The 1.e4 player is forced to play many. That's a curse and a blessing. Good to hear a master saying that variety is good not only for fun but for learning as well.
Boy i love the way you talk, also good point, nice content! Cheers
I'm a 50+ year old chess noob whose only relevant experience is coaching youth basketball. I was getting tired or replying to every random gambit after 1. e4 and tried the London and win rate was at 71% at my lowly ELO, but stopped. Why? I realized it's zone defense! Every youth basketball league doesn't let little kids play zone because they don't develop their skill. They make them play man-to-man (and also don't allow full court pressure, which I guess is analogous to gambits) so they learn basically skill of dribbling and shooting and the 2-man and 3-man game. I hated it after they allowed it (at too early an age in my opinion) because most coaches focused on winning rec league youth games and all played zone and pressed and the games. The kids got little out of it and the games were horrible to watch. Horrible to watch was also why zone used to be banned in the NBA. It's not banned now but still not used much because the players are too good (having grown up in a system where the zone was banned in their formative years!).
Would you consider the english solid? I like the positional play and feel like it fights for the center well.
Yup
the 'cambridge springs' structure was mentioned, was that a mistake or am I just mistaken? Should that have been the Carlsbad structure instead?
I am mistaken, you are not:)
When I was lower rated, playing exclusively blitz games, I would play the London because it meant that I could smash out the opening quickly and try to avoid time trouble. I really quickly transitioned into a Bf4 queen's gambit as standard because I found it hard to generate offense from the London proper. Now I play Bg5 in the queen's gambit typically because I am higher rated and I better understand the value of pressuring the knight on f6 to control the centre. If you'd asked me "why is your bishop on f4?" I'd have told you that I just put it there because it looks alright on an open diagonal. Contrast that with "why is your bishop on g5?" The answer is that if I take or pin the knight on f6, it reduces his influence over E4 and D5, and if I ever want to establish two central pawns, it's going to be hard with E4 covered by his knight and his D pawn (and often his bishop)
Since then I've stopped playing blitz almost altogether, and I naturally gravitated to E4 openings. I'm going to pick blitz back up again using it as a tool to expose myself to more opening variations - as recommended by Andras. Because that's probably a really quick way to help embed the different variations of, for eg. Ruy Lopez, so I'll be able to expose myself to more good and bad opening moves by playing more games in that position.
On this last point, I won't play the London in blitz anymore because IT DOESN'T REALLY REQUIRE YOU TO LEARN OPENING VARIATIONS. Or, if it does. You're only going to learn them after move 10 or so, because you could probably play the first 10 moves without looking at your opponent's moves.
Well done to anyone who read this entire rant.
@mxstoe Completely agree - I was more trying to make the point that the more I gravitated away from simple systems like the London, the deeper my understanding about the position became.
Obviously I have a lot to learn! I am very far away from understanding all opening ideas in the QGD - but the less I played the London, the better I understood what I was doing
Thank you for sharing 🙏🏿
that reasoning is interesting not only for the london, but for "universal systems" of opening (colle zutertort, king's indian attack, hippopotamus etc)
Very good video. The point is that you need to think and understand each move, not just blindly play. Add the Colle to this discussion as well. It’s made chess quite boring too.
Carlsen plays e4, d4, and c4 openings. He’s even played the Bird’s (1.f4) opening which borders on dubious. Carlsen once played the Trompowsky in the world championship. He’s looking for a middle game and endgame where he can get an advantage against other super grandmasters. You can’t compare to our games.
He has played f3 Kf2 vs So in blitz and regularly pulls out the Norwegian Rat against non-masters. Most amusing was the hand-and-brain game with Gustafsson (if I spelled his name right) in which he threw his rook stupidly, like, literally stupidly, on about move 7, into his opponent's castled position on g2. Half a game later he said, "this is so incredibly lost," and as the final seconds were ticking down, that he had shown absolutely no respect for his opponent and that a loss would be just punishment. The amateur dropped his flag about 2-3 moves from the mate.
Point is, Carlsen does everything. If he pulls something out occasionally, that is no indication that it is to be recommended.
Surprised you were able to keep this vid under 10 hours 👍
Hi Andras, I liked the video and as someone who started out with the London precisely as a way to cut down complexity and start playing games (I tend to get bogged down in preparation with strategy games and then actually play too few proper matches), but later migrated to e4 stuff, I'd have liked to see a bit more specifics in the video. I migrated away from the london because I never intended to only play 1 thing but I never understood it as weak/passive (but I'm a noob so that's normal).
I'd have loved to see in this video more examples of the pitfalls of the London in the midgame, say how things go wrong when you have passive presence in the center, becasue as you said in the video at first glance it looks like the Londoner is going for the center, but in the wrong way, but in my inexperienced eyes they both look very similar so I can't tell immediately one way is worse.
Could you maybe showcase some model games like you did on the other series for different ratings, like players doing the London at least moderately competently and then failing at some point because of the passivity of the opening (rather than just blundering a piece or something like that). I think that companion vid would really help cement this video with some concepts in action.
Thanks again for the great content, keep it up.
Great idea.
London System is a very good way to introduce someone to have a playable chess, but its biggest strength is also its biggest drawback; its popular with every body.
But as a beginner its pretty solid experience in building middlegame tactics and basic concepts.
Its boring for some but it is super solid to those who understand it deeply, its pretty annoying to combat it if the one using it knows the concepts fully, it is pretty hard to break.
Thanks for this video. I've never played the London, despite it being so popular, as there was something that didn't appeal to me about it. You managed to articulate it perfectly (and more, of course). I'm finally diving in to trying to learn some opening theory after years of just tying to apply the basic principals, and this video has helped answer a few questions. Love your work. AjC
I have the same experience like you man. I start to learn some openings and more theory just now, because otherwise I will get killed quickly nowadays. Almost everyone play openings better in these days than five or ten years ago. But I never had this bad habit to learn London.
Nice video! Gotta go and change my opening repertoire from the london to something else :) . Any suggestions @ChessCoach Andras?
Totally agree with your points Andras! Glad I (recently) found your channel.
I've been building my opening repertoire based on a couple of my favourite players, all my games are some kind of QGD, English or Réti. On rare occasions, but only as a surprise weapon, I can play the Torre Attack, which luckily is at least more combative than the London (especially with an early N.e5).
Glad you found me, enjoy the channel! Also I recommend you check out my d4 CHessable course, which would cover your repertoire completely as White!
@@ChessCoachAndras Thanks Andras
London is basically playing the QGD from black, but with the queen's bishop freed. Granted, it cedes the advantage of playing white, but it's no worse than playing as black. Most games at that level, the advantage of playing white doesn't mean as much as playing a solid game.
But the main point of the video isn't about whether the opening is solid. The point it that it teaches bad habits and avoids expanding your chess skill, and that is a very valid criticism.
What about Jobava?
Hi Andras have you made any video on punishing the opening mistakes? I am sure many of us would love to see that.
I understand the spirit of this but considering only the worst possible case of London system games and players is a bit of a straw man argument. For example the fact you can play the same moves without reacting to what black does is just not true. Also if you study only one opening you are disregarding all the other ones no matter which one you pick, so it's not a London-specific issue.
You could argue that the london means you don't see other lines through transposition, but the london is most recommended to beginners, who aren't going to see any theory at all no matter what they play.
Did anyone watch Simon Williams videos about London, saying that it can be a really aggressive opening? Now, I am not sure if I wanna continue playing it or not..
5:58 “…a ginurrrrrmous system we call chess.” Love this.
Came from Danya, keep up the great work!
Thanks mate!
Did Danya mention this somewhere? I found this video from Reddit.
@@trent797 NO, Danya Raided my stream and then I released the vid whilst the stream was on.
I remember doing an experiment half a year ago against 2000-2100's on lichess where I would push 4 pawns up 1 square against a london player for the first 4 moves. Against 5 different players none of them knew how to play in the center and HALF of them didn't even understand the concept of pawn breaks. Easiest way to beat a lower rated london player---> just fart around until you're in a position you know they have never seen before. Works every time.
@@BeFourCM hedgehog is great to annoy london players
@@BeFourCM love it! Thanks for the info👍
Fantastic encouragement for an ambitious and depth-seeking mindset. Thank you.
The pleassure is is mine!
Great video. I’m looking to get better under a multitude of structures, so this resonates well.
Would playing the London (especially with early h4-h5) against the Dutch be an exception? It's a rare opening and having a solid line + clear idea prepared sounds more attractive to me, than digging deep into the early e4 lines. What's your take on that approach?
Yea, I guess against a Dutch is sensible to keep, although even there you could find better alternatives.
@@ChessCoachAndras Thanks for the advice, I'll replace it with something more interesting on a rainy day.
8:05 it is 'Cambridge Springs'? ... not the 'Carlsbad'?
Maybe I do want to learn to utilize 30 different pawn structures. Maybe I do want memorize theoretical lines, 15 moves deep, for all of a dozen different openings. Maybe I do want to absorb hundreds of lessons, and spend countless hours practicing, so that one day maybe I will be capable of playing chess, and not a system.
In the meantime, something I can learn quickly and use effectively against other players like myself who are just starting out sounds pretty good.
catalan system.....
As always! Pure genius! The chess universe is huge, let's not play a system that only let's us see 1 percent of the sky.
Let people play what they want. Kasparov and Carlsen have both played it. Enough said. Not everyone has hundreds of hours to learn 30 moves of theory in the Ruy Lopez etc.
@@happyhornet1000 you clearly haven't watched the video. Kasparov and Carlsen never used it as their main weapon. Only play it once in a while. The biggest point is that if you want to improve it is better to have more variation and ambitious openings that actually fight for the center. This doesn't mean you will have to memorize 30 moves of theory.
Which are, in your opinion, the best openings for a beginner player? The first two to learn? Thanks
you need to watch this: th-cam.com/video/LlPHVLfFH3I/w-d-xo.html
As a London player, I strongly believe in the famous saying by the late great Lee Jun Fan: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
London System is a very good way to introduce someone to have a playable chess, but its biggest strength is also its biggest drawback; its popular with every body.
But as a beginner its pretty solid experience in building middlegame tactics and basic concepts.
Its boring for some but it is super solid to those who understand it deeply, its pretty annoying to combat it if the one using it knows the concepts fully, it is pretty hard to break.
So do you know 300 computer lines in the London and at least 20 grandmaster games by heart? Or are you just lazy and play the same BS over and over in blitz
Yeah but playing the london is as painful as kicking a tree 10000 times and by the end all the wisdom means nothing cause your leg is broken
Yeah and then you find that one type of kick does not work with that opponent so you wish you had learnt how to do the other 9,999 other kicks even if only once so you could at least have a chance of effecting something. In other words learnt the many different ways you could kick so at least you understand combat a bit more thoroughly
Yeah good one. People who are taken by clever sayings always need to be refuted with just as clever sayings
I mean if we go by "But Hikaru and Carlsen play it" then I guess by now the Bongcloud is legit too.
In one of your videos when you faced London and then played the same opponent with white he played the Caro Kann. Then you said something like "obviously London player plays caro-kann". As a long-time caro-kann player and adult improver, I'd like to know your opinion on 1. e4 c6. Is it a bad opening for improving players?
The only viable openings against 1. e4 I could even consider are Sicilian and 1. e4 e5. Both, however, require studying enourmous amounts of theory which I do not have time to work on, therefore I stick with what I've been playing for years. I play 1. c4 as white for the same reason - I've always been playing this opening and switching to 1. e4 seems too much. I've almost never played e4 and it would be tough to learn it from scratch. Do you think that maybe going for something completely new makes sense just to get better understanding of different positions? I am also thinking about it from tournament perspective. Many youngsters and more experience players would destroy me before I could grasp a completely new repertoire. I think that sticking with 1. c4 and 1. e4 c6 is just safer.
What are your thoughts?
Caro Kann also...this guy.Alireza must be a boring noob according to his logic.
@@Unscripted9 He said that KIA and London are boring because you play the same set up.Yeah Alireza is so boring.Any opening until a move is boring if you know the theory.He could say in what can help you the London(strategic thinking/positional play in closed structures,attack the king side in closed structures,endgames,etc and then say that if you want something more sharp and aggressive play something else but he choiced to act like a hater of the hype and to talk about the "beauty" of opening theory and same bull!@3.While someone improving will understand according to his level to play more sharp openings or unsual openings.Alireza choice unpopular openings because he know that his opponents have study them less.This logic in corrent in any level.Also in openings there is no principal understanding you know them or not.Because if the opponent know his stuff with b6 as first move for example,even if you control the center with normal moves you will have problem.
Dunno what Andras thinks, but one thing in favour of the Caro is that you at least get a decent range of middlegame structures depending on how white sets up - you can potentially see Carlsbad or IQP in the exchange, French structures in the advance variations, and the actual Caro structure in the classical Caro.
This guy doesn't understand intelligence and common sense. Caro-Kann can often lead to similar structures and play like you would experience as white in the London system. Similar pawn structures, themes, and such. His hate towards these two openings only shows how butthurt he probably is by getting beaten by what he considers dry and "not chess" - if it is so simple and rudimentary, why not just dismantle it in 10moves...oh wait, that's because there actually is a lot of interesting theory behind every opening...
Amazing video, great explanation Andras
hmmm... Will start working on a response ;)
No need for one pal! we can have different opinions and still appreciate each other! YOu are a talented dude, I wish you the very best!
@@ChessCoachAndras ty! this comment was just a joke btw :) liked the vid, i encourage others to do the same!
Great explanation, makes much more sense to play the board and not a series of prescribed moves. I'll put this opening to rest and focus on more thoughtful and less passive openings. Appreciate your thoughts!
After coming back to chess after a couple of decades, I've enjoyed the London. Sure, I've put some work into different variations - including a lot of Jobava variations - but it serves me well. This allows me to spend time on my black repertoire - Dutch and Caro-Kann.
When I feel my choices there are solid enough, I'll add e4 back... Wesley So's lifetime repertoires are waiting.
Using what little I remember of the Najdorf and Gründfeld 30 years afterwards would just be begging for pain.
I have never played the London once in thousands online games. I despise the opening. Still i spent too much time playing chess to reach 2100 online rating and i didn't get anything worthwhile out of it. If someone doesn't have too much time for chess the London opening is a concrete option. You won't become good at chess but you will be able to play some casual games without self destruction in the opening.
Wonderful video explaining why the London isn't mainstream. I have recently been playing the Kings Indian Defense as Black against D4. I like the themes in it with striking back in the center to prepare for a kingside attack or possibly queenside expansion, but now wonder is it detrimental to play it? The intent of the KID doesn't seem to be as passive as it is in the London, but it being a sort of system I could see it being flawed. I know there are subtitles depending on move order like if they play early e5 but overall but are there other fundamental differences besides the passive nature?
I'm just starting out and saw your other video on choosing opening lines (the amateur's mind) and didn't fully grasp your thoughts on the London, but it sure is clear on this video. Not playing the London is like eating your vegetables. I was about to launch myself headfirst into the London, but if I'm being honest with myself I want to improve long term, and I do enjoy variety. Thank you for keeping it real. #adultimprover #beginner #oldguy
I understand and respect your opinion. What do you think about the King's Indian Attack?
Pretty much the same, leaning towards a slightly more favourable judgement
@@ChessCoachAndras Ok thx. I'm taking this into my consideration about what to use as my weapon for white.
@@ChessCoachAndras then really you "like" Alireza...and he is playing so boring with these openings...i agree.
@@dimkilago2958 YOu mean this Alireza? th-cam.com/video/qwaLjDTFHSg/w-d-xo.html check how many of these were Londons....
@@ChessCoachAndras Now check his last two classic tournaments and his "boring" games with London and KIA.
This applay just for the london? Or for all the system in chess?
Colle,nimzo larsen,hippo,KIA?
In my book it is mostly applicable to all system openings.
@@ChessCoachAndras
okaay coach👐👐 thanks ,
i really like your mindset
Iam a colle system zukertort player
But i always knew that was temporaly in reality i wanna play the queen's gambit in the future an enjoy all the diferent positions and pawn structure. And now i am so much exating about make that transicion just because of your videos🙌
So thank youuu!!
What's wrong with the London?, i thought that question was rethorical.
What opening/s (or just ideas) do you suggest beginners learn instead?
At the true beginner level, playing online, E4 openings get you targeted by cheesy gambits really often. So aside from the hours every week you suggest to spend learning openings that’s also time to look up and learn refutations for the popular gambits... is there a better way?
Of course there is. As a beginner you most likely shouldn't just blindly memorize openings by heart. Note that I didn't say you shouldn't improve your opening play. Let me explain. First you should know the opening principles, developing pieces, trying not to move the same one twice, controlling the center and connecting the rooks, etc. That is the basic thing. Yes, you will be hit by gambits from time to time and you will lose some games because of it. Don't be afraid to lose, because you just have to lose some games to improve. What to do then?
First, you should analyze all your games (you should play long games because those are the best to improve). As a beginner this means (at first) identifying losing blunders you and your opponent possibly made during the game. Novice players make blunders very often. Apart from that, you can look at the engine in combination with the opening database and see where you could make an improvement in a line you actually play and that happened during your game.
For instance I had a game in Najdorf as black and the opponent went for 6. Bg5 which is main line. I played ...e5 and was uncomfortable afterwards, because soon enough his knight was able to infiltrate to d5 and he was much better and won this game. I saw afterwards that after Bg5, black plays e6 in most cases instead of e5 in that line and has much better win loss percentage as well. Therefore I will not play e5 after Bg5 again. :)
That way you will gradually improve your play and opening play along with it. For instance, I am playing for a year and I never studied openings actively (my top rapid chess.com rating is somewhat over 1520, and I am currently just shy of 1 500 so I am not great, but I am starting to not be terrible). I did however look at the database and I did analyze my games and looked for improvements in the opening.
In the future, I am sure I will make some pgn files for separate opening variations and learn them more actively, but up to my current level, that wasn't necessary at all. I even noticed that I am in many cases better in the opening or at least equal, so in most cases opening play is not something that is the deciding factor on my level.
Anyway the best advice I have for you is to not be afraid to lose games (it is fine not to feel great afterwards, I know I don't :) ), but try to learn something from your losses.
Sorry for the long post by the way. :)
@@nklristic what's your username? I'm always looking to play with people who like to chat about the game
@@joeperry1188 It's nklristic.
@@nklristic Thanks for the reply, no apologies needed at all for the length as my reply is a little bit long too. :) I am not really asking for myself. It's a genuine question to him because he delineates why he thinks the London is "bad" but he doesn't quite describe a specific alternative (e.g. order of doing things, specific alternative openings to start learning) for beginners, who probably comprise a bulk of the people playing this opening and may be stumbling upon this video.
You mention not studying openings until being in the 1500s, and the video seems to me to be advocating the opposite: yes it's hard, but to be good at chess is to accept that you have to set aside time for studying openings and opening theory. That's also part of where my question is coming from, there's a lot of information out there for beginners and it can be overwhelming and confusing if you're just starting from learning how the pieces move. Because on one hand they are told not to study openings and just the principles until they're higher rated, on the other if they want to study (maybe because they're getting dunked on constantly at the lower levels, even more now because of the recent super-high popularity of chess and videos about cheesy unsound gambits/tricks) they might be lost on where to start. The London is something I've seen recommended by some of the most popular content creators online for chess, so I understand why they would want to start there (hopefully with the idea of learning more as they go)...and might be bummed to be told it's for people who "don't want to get better at chess" without a clear alternative spelled out.
I just wondered what his thoughts were for self-taught beginners on making a plan of study, in what order to tackle things, what openings to start with that will set them up for success later on etc. Hopefully even if he doesn't reply in the comments, that's a nice nugget of a video idea. I know a few people just starting to get into chess now and it would be nice to have something to point them to. :)
(Personally, to their credit, I think people learning the London are already showing more willingness to learn to "actually" play chess, by learning an opening compared to a fair number of users online just out there spamming only gambits and tricks. I know someone who is starting from 400-500, not playing blitz, and they're getting hit multiple times everyday with users just attempting some type of Stafford gambit or whatever...)
The more you play against those cheesy gambits the better you get at refuting them.
I’m a deliberate e5 player and I often hope I get the garbage gambits thrown at me. Halloween gambit? Yes please, give me the free piece!
1... Nf6 players frustrated by facing the London should look into the Old Indian defense. It looks to force dxe5 and basically convert a d-pawn game into an e-pawn game. In my experience, London players respond very poorly when knocked out of their comfort zone in this way.
I don't understand what you are suggesting. London Players will play 1d4 d6 2.Nf3 and transpose back into London.
@@ChessCoachAndras Often they bring out the Bishop first, so 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d6. But 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 is perfectly playable and London merchants will usually plough ahead with 3. ... Bf4 anyway.
1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d6, 3. Nf3 Nbd7 4. e3 c6 5. e3 Qc7 with 6...e5. It melts their brains!
Edit:fixed the mangled variation to add in 3... Nbd7
@@ahahaha3505 I don't know what level of players you are talking about, but this is a rather poor setup, and as long as they don't trade on e5 (why would they?)White is doing better than in the majority of the London lines. Btw this e5 plan is super easy to carry out with the g6 Bg7 lines, which is far better!:)
And now we have seen the london in a world championship match LOL
13:02 ... how can u punish b6 ? is it considered as bad move for black?
I have to agree! Anything that you acquire with little or no effort turns out to be of little or no value in the long run. Applies everywhere.
Very nice video with good points. But I wonder what you think about the Rossolimo/Moscow variations on the Sicilian, from White´s perspectives? Are these good to play for the improving player, or do you say, «Play the Open Sicilian, dude!» ?
Andras advocates for Open Sicilian or Alapin Variation.
YOu answered it for me!
Hi Andras.
Is the colle just " another London"?
I've been working on the London....as black! It's become so common online that I wanted to put some energy into finding real weapons against it. You can play for basic equality, and the game will be fine, but you can also get some fantastic positions by going for the center with 3...c5. If they play their moves robotically, black gets a better center for free. If they take, black will have safe pressure and a lead in development.
One of the big arguments for playing the London is that it avoids prep.....au contrare mon frere.
indeed, it's so common in online chess that every semi-serious player has a good line against it _and_ gets to practice it regularly.
@@keedt And this again begs the question: If someone is going to prep against you anyway, why take this dull, useless position? You could play 1.c4 2.g3, remain too cool for the main lines, and still get a neat set of positions with white.
While we're at it, the stonewall attack and KIA are two others I see beginners learning, and they're both terrible first openings. The stonewall is trash when you get to 1500, so it's just a glass ceiling...and, per Andras, you get the same structure in every game. The KIA has the opposite problem: It's great at an intermediate level, but we can't teach beginners to give away the center and swing for the fences; that's animal abuse!
London for white, Caro Kan for black, easy system, you just have to know some traps your opponent might play. The reason you want yo play other system is because you want to enjoy watching games played in other system.
There's nothing wrong with the London. London system bashing is just a waste of time in my view. The avoidance of understanding chess is the problem. Plenty of people who understand chess at a high level employ the London from time to time. The problems Andras points out shouldn't be confused with playing the London at all. He's just against monotony, oversimplification of chess, and avoidance of learning due to laziness. None of that needs to be associated with the London and it's overly simplistic to do so. There. That's why I completely disagree with the primary message of this video. Bashing the London is just as much of a "fad" as adopting the opening as one's primary opening. Neither side is thinking constructively.
Of course, Andras is right about learning chess properly and about those who play the London because they don't want to learn anything else, but just bashing the London is like saying such unqualified nonsense as "playing Blitz is bad for you." It IS bad for you... but only at a certain level and if it causes you to learn bad habits. The London *can* be bad for you too, but it needn't be, if you approach it properly.
For god's sake, Eric Rosen and other high rated players use it regularly and even Magnus has used it from time to time. Of course, Rosen doesn't play it as a static "system." Naroditsky regularly employs the Jobava London... but, the word "London" certainly doesn't scare them away.
Liam Quan Li has an excellent Chessable course on how to play the London at a high level.
On a personal note, I'm primarily an e4 player, so I'm not defending "my opening," although I did play it for some time. I love the bishop's opening, Italian, Ruy, Vienna, Scotch, Morra, Grand Prix, to the open sicilians, etc., but I play d4 and the London from time to time. Heck, I sometimes play the Colle or even a Stone Wall with some success and these may even be simpler than the London in some versions. It's about understanding and adaptation to your opponent's moves. If your opponent doesn't adapt properly vs the Colle, Stone Wall, or the London, they can be extremely venomous!
What do you think about the Jobava London system? It has many variations depending on what black plays.
It is a trickier version of something that -as per video- one should avoid. it still is a no from me, with other words.
Fair enough, I'm doing chessable free courses jobava, french and king's Indian defense.
I was 1768 last month then low 1600 as I'm trying more variations but my first goal is 1800s on chess.com.
Very nice! What do you think about antisicilians like alapin, gran prix etc.?
That they avoid the most fun opening. Its like: here is a 7 course meal sire and you go like, "nahh , thanks, Maccas burgers are better."
@@ChessCoachAndras Thank you for your reply! Do you have the same opinion on 3. Bb5 Sicilians ( Rossolimo and Moscow) ?
Awesome video as always Andras! Can you do a video discussing why you also think that playing the closed Sicilian is not good for improvement? I recall you saying that improving players should only play the Open Sicilian
I disagree with that, you Can also play it in a completly different way for example with Long(or no) castles and atack with g4, h4 or Stoff like that, there are many atacking and instructive Games in the London, if you don‘t play it that boring like in the Video
The title should be "Whats wrong with playing the London all the time?"
I play the London occasionally (still play other openings) and i dont get bored when i play it. I especially play it against a tactically minded and tactically superior player.
Also the London is great for those who have very little time to study or even play the game. It is still would remain enjoyable for that reason.
Did you watch the video? If you did, why are you acting like this wasn't adressed?
The London is a very good and interesting opening for white. Hikaru Nakamura, one of the best chess players of the world, and Levy Rozman (gotham chess), recommend it as one of the best openings for beginners, intermediate players and grandmasters (youtube: opening tier list for beginners, intermediate players, gms). It is also the favourite opening of IM Eric Rosen. You can find a high quality content of videos on youtube, where he shows many of the tricky lines of London (Rosen teaches Botez for instance). You can and should play this opening highly versatile. (It is completely clear that you should also play other openings to understand different kinds of positions. No player ever will only play one opening in his life.) In the playlist of Hanging pawns, who puts much effort into his videos, to London he shows many ways how to play it against different setups. Another fan of this opening is NM Robert Ramirez (chess lesson 58, 62 - best opening for white). Stockfish also likes the opening - you have a good position and are positive in all lines. London is versatile, has many attacking opportunities and should be studied by every chess player. A great help are the videos I mentioned above.
Sure....
Totally agree, I hate why this channel declines London as a good openning if you spend time learning more about London :)
@@chess.shyman Because it _isn’t_ a good opening. If you think you get better at chess by learning cheap tricks and simple strategies to stay alive, not to mention always be on the backfoot right off the opening then thats a nono. Also, the biggest problem isn’t even that, it’s that you ALWAYS play the same structures, so you aren’t learning proper chess. The symmetrical and Carlsbad pawn structures are the only thing you are gonna learn, and even there your pieces are poorly placed for the structure. Learn proper openings that give you a fighting chance and most importantly a variety of structures. Of course, if you don’t want to improve in chess then system openings are fine, but if you want serious improvement, forget about them.
@@microitos9754 First of all, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. he has to check his sources, (which he doesn't have because he's hungry for videos and monetization). The second thing, there is something called 'playing with black' in chess. This guy wants you to spend 97423749872349823749832749823749823749832730947239087423980472390749823749820367459286492364936472364782 years learning all the 1947092137459832465923758029542372567896075667439075094375 variations of the open Sicilian.
You're just gonna repeat what he said? 'OOOH NO STRUCTURE NO OPEN POSITION NONONONO'.
There are some more structures I can name.
The double 'b' pawn structure in Bf5 positons.(1.d4 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bf4 Bf5
The double 'd' pawn structure in the bf5/chigorin positions.
The berkes(h) structure in the mainline London.
The c3-d4-e4/Nc3-e4 structure in the KID.(Technically it's still the london)
The Stonewall Structure.
The Chigorin structures.
THE LITERAL MAIN LINE OF THE LONDON IS A DOUBLE C PAWN AND ISOLATED A PAWN SAC? WTF THIS IS UTTER Stupidity this idiot is talking about.
And the beauty of the London is that it's good against everything. I don't ever know why you call that a bad thing.
It like 5 problems 1 solution, but here the problems are KID, QID, Tarrasch ,benoni , Ba6 lines, etc etc.
All of these have different way of playing. oh wait. I already forgot to mention other lines like e4 in the Steinitz counter gambit.
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d5 3.e3 c5 4.Nd2 Nc6 5.Ngf3 Qb6 6.dxc5 Qxb2. These positions offer a general initiative if black doesn't know what he's doing and if he does then these positions are generally equal.
In reference to 3:54, the answer is a google search. You learn to do it in 5 mins, serves the rest of your life, allows you to discover some amazing stuff, whether behind a paywall or not. but it also allows you to find some braindead guy ranting 20 mins about a perfectly fine opening for improvers and encouraging them to waste time studying theory they will never use anyway. for example: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5 12. g5 b4 13. Ne2 Ne8 14. f4 a5 15. f5 a4 16. Nbd4 exd4 17. Nxd4 b3 18. Kb1 bxc2+ 19. Nxc2 Bb3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Na3
So what you're saying basically is that 'Im greedy and don't do any research for my videos' in like a 20 minute long video.
All im saying is this guy is greedy, doesn't want to research, wants to people to lose, and etc etc.
This is very similar to what I tell my students when I am making them write code instead of use a stupid tool! If you want to actually learn something well, you have to work it out yourself and learn to deal with all the bumps and hiccups
Good arguments 😃
What do you recommend for beginners?
Watch his video "amateurs mind #3" he explains that there. That video is regarding this same issure, and then later in the video he gives opening recommendations. Highly highly suggest you watch that. I've watched it several times I think it's necessary. That changed my view of chess. In conclusion he recommends: Queen's gambit, slav, semi-slav, nimzo-indian, ruy lopez, sicilians (not kalashnikov), scotch opening (not gambit) etc. He also explains WHY he recommends them, 1. they're flexible, 2. slav for instance literally teaches chess principles, main line is logical in that sense.
@@cheesiechess3656 thanks a lot! Will watch it 👨💻😃
there are many passive opening systems that are playable, but not good for growth.
Jeez chessmaster Andras... how many "HEAD" shirts do you own? didnt know they sponcer chess players :p
About 10 or so. Most of them were gifted to me by my tennis coach.:)
1600ish on chess.com here. I'm a pretty strong opening player for my level; I get a lot of positions that are objectively good and which I can sense are good, and I blunder at least half of them away or can't execute the attack. I'm also not good enough at moderately slow positions. If it wasn't the case that I was pretty versed in openings, wouldn't it make sense to play the London to skip through 10-15 moves and focus on everything that comes after? I've had the sense for a while that I would approach 2000 FIDE if I could play endgames reliably.
Also, you level the same criticisms against the king's indian attack that you level here against the London, or c4 g3 even?
KIa is definitely a slightly better case as is the Botvinnik English.
I can tell this is going to be a spicy video. As someone who is always on the Black side of the London I welcome it. Much easier game than playing against the mainlines and since its so common I'm more booked up than if they actually met my Semi Slav with theory.
I can relate to this so much as a Semi-Slav player, every time I face the London I’m like: “thank you for the easy game and I guess I’m going to take the center if you don’t mind”, I actually know a lot more theory of the London for black rather than the actual semi-slav theory
So, you completely succesfully convinced me. But now I am left without an opening for white after the London bringing me to 1200! Any recommendation to fill the void you left behind? :D
Play d4 followed by 2.c4 and enjoy chess instead of worrying about theory! ( but slowly try to learn it!:))
Thank you so much! I'll work on it.
@@nehms4492 be prepared against gambits
I learned e4 ideas from Dr. Wolf teaches chess.
Greetings...Hi Chico - I use to play this all the time, a few years ago, when I was learning. I did not understand close or open games then... ( I have been away from Chess for app 6 years/playing again at present time). My rating is a 950/1000...so please accept my limited knowledge. I do like playing a more open game, and most certainly want to learn "Correct" Chess. Not being limited to...the above Opening (I do not play this now...I find it not enjoyable). Thanks Chico's/Coach/Andras.
Thanks and welcome on board!
I love the fact that you were almost laughing saying mortal humans compare themselves to hikaru or carlsen 🤣
I completely agree with you. I started chess not that long ago. I played the London and got stuck at 600-700 elo. Once I decided to stop playing this opening, within 3 months I became 1100 rating. When I played the London I had no idea what I was doing. I learned the concepts you mention when I started playing things like the Scandinavian and Queen's gambit. The London is a terrible thing for a beginner.
Amazing video. A true service. Awesome to have all those arguments we know but this time from someone who knows much better what hes talking about! Thanks Andras!
As white, I play E4 openings (Vienna, Italian) in matches where I feel like the time controls allow me enough time to think as long as I want about each move (basically any game 5 mins and longer). I am winning a high percentage of games with those time controls, but struggle when I have under 3 mins to play because I often run into time difficulty. I was considering using the London for faster blitz and bullet matches precisely because it seems like the opening moves are practically on autopilot which could save me time for more calculation in the mid and end game. Is it a bad idea to have the London as a situational option? If so, what opening(s) would you recommend for blitz and bullet games?
it isnt
Andras at the end of the video you mention a hierarchy ranking of openings. Do you have a list of openings you recommend for beginners?
Sir Andras, do you think the Colle System is crappy as well? And the Kings Indian Attack?
Colle is crappy, yes. Stonewall is also crappy. KID not really crappy at all, Hikarus best considered game ever played was a KID, but beginners should probably not play the KID since it just abandons the center and knights look at first glance awful, not something we should teach beginners to play.
@@cheesiechess3656 I meant the KIA, not the KID
I’ve been playing the London for a while, but you’ve convinced me! I’ll start looking for something fresh
Glad to hear sir. Just kick off with d4 then c4 and enjoy yourself!
What are your thoughts on the scotch four knights vs the Vienna?
London system is a perfect opening base, what do you mean not real chess? Its modern and havent had time to develop into a classic. If it was called the morphy system i bet this discussion would be different.
Heres my suggestion: if you want to be good at math, start by learning 1+1. "Its not real math". Well yes it is, even when you master quantum. EVERY opening can transition into other openings. For instance. Get used to the london, then go c4 instade of c3 (for exemple when the opponent responds to bishop to c4 with bishop to f5). Put the knight on c3. Viola, you have started a perfect transition (with middlegame and pawn structure experience) into queens gambit accepted/declined. Also easy transition to slav as black. Then you experiment with playing the london with bishop on c1, viola french defense.
Ive also seen you bash the scandinavian defense. Same there. Similar "simple" structures appears almost EVERY time. Then when you get tired of it you realize you have saved tons of time studying theory about the karo cann. Cause there are so many similarities and themes between middlegame pawnstructures (which is basically everything sound understanding of what opening theory is?)
Life changing advise in 5 minutes? Creativity =simplifying.
On another note, your videos are usually very good. Ive learned alot from them. Thank you sir ;)
You are a provacative teacher, those are usually the best. Thanks.
All the best.
You sound like a very intelligent person so I am rather confused as to why you chose to not to understand the main point of this video, which was not to bash the London but explain why it is an opening that endorses really bad habits. Your maths analogy is fully wrong for this reason too, because the simplicity is not what is wrong with The London. It is the mindset behind it. (which is that it is trying to tell you that 1+1 is all there is in chess).
All this said, I appreciate your comment.
@@ChessCoachAndras And you are clearly not a very intelligent person because he understood your video and gave very good points why your hatred is completely wrong and unfounded. London is not some parrot regurgitating sounds it hears, every move matters and you will lose quickly if you don't respect it. Some bully beatdown is in order here, Rosen vs Bozen the Clown, making an example of a fool throwing rocks at openings he doesn't understand. Would be hilarious watching a live stream of attempts to justify why London is basic and harmful for chess players whilst getting butchered by Jobava.
Magnus Carlsen is an example of an actually intelligent person who truly loves chess and respects every opening enough to learn it and truly understand it - and surprise, surprise, he's had crushing victories with London. On the plus side, it's a real-time saver showing your hand pre-flop, so people looking to learn chess can easily identify what you can or can't offer.
@@ChessJourneyman Of course I am famously unintelligent, but someone who judges me at something I have been doing for 20 years is clearly a mastermind. Bringing up Carlsen in this shows how little you and the other critiques of the video (or rather the critiques of my persona) bothered to actually grasp what I am saying (Watch again and try to comprehend,).
On that note Carlsen wins games and produces masterpieces with literally any opening.. A MasterChef making an amazing omelette would apparently convince you that that dish is the the crown of fine dining.
Also, You have made up your mind way before you watched any of my videos, otherwise you would not say purely insulting things like what "I can and can't offer pre flop." (According to thousands I can offer a lot by the way)
Oh , final note, I did beat Rosen, on stream, in the London, (you can find it if you care to look instead of just offloading your anger) but it does not prove anything to anyone who actually thinks. The same way how it would not have meant anything if he had won. Because this video was about improving players. But , of course, as stated above, you chose to hate instead of paying attention to the details of the message of this video.
I know you like a sport anology. In rock climbing there is a way of holding a grip called a closed crimb (say the London grip). The reasons why it's so populair is because you can use it for almost any hold and you're climbing level goes up quickly in the beginning. And the main reason is that it's comfortable. It's your grip (aka your London opening) you know best and to let it go means you have to try and fail with other more difficult grips and dropping your climbing level along with it. Eventually you have to unlearn this habit in order to grow in overall skill.
Is there a particular study you would recommend to a London player looking to repent and branch out?
Nothing to repent about. The London can help a player transpose into the Jobava London, or Queen's Gambit Accepted and Declined, for starters.
Very well explained , this system is not my style , but looking back to how many wild games i lost !!! , i could almost sympathize 😆with people sticking only to the London system !! in their games
So enjoying these videos. Can't believe you're still so niche
I've waited a long time for this
Looking forward to your next video on why everyone should play the Colle system. Or maybe the Botvinnik English...
Pawn triangle go brrrr
I was introduced to chess with e4 openings which has me opening based on reacting to black and playing out from there, I was thinking of adopting a d4 opening, what's a good d4 opening outside of the london?
[for reference:]
My E4 is mainly Prefer Italian/Piano - Full Center if allowed full center, Advance in French - e5 in Alekhine, Decline (Nc3) in Petrov, Accept Scandi then chase queen with Nc3. knights, bishops, castle as soon as possible when safe to do so.
queens gambit with d4
is the colle system good or bad?
No go for the exact same reasons
Lovely video. Also why is it in the love thy classics playlist?