Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Create a game Tournament Simultaneous exhibitions
Chess basics Puzzles Practice Coordinates Study Coaches
Lichess TV Current games Broadcasts (beta) Video library
Players Teams Forum Questions & Answers
Analysis board Board editor Import game Advanced search
Sign in
  1. Forum
  2. Game analysis
  3. Anti London System idea

This week I tried a new idea with Dutch defense and Bd6 when white plays London System. The London System seems very popular lately among the opponents on Lichess. The idea looks weird at first but so far it worked out okay in several games. Here's a recent game with it (where I played bad after the opening, but that is not important here) :

This is strange. Normally in the Stonewall Dutch white tries to trade off black's good dark square bishop with moves like b3 and Ba3 and black tends to avoid such trade with moves like Bd6 and Qe7
Here you voluntarily trade your good bishop for his bad bishop albeit outside his pawn chain.

His 10 Bb3 is not useful. He should have played 10 Bd3, where he can trade his bishop for your knight if you put it on e4, giving him an endgame of his good knight versus your bad bishop. Your central knight on e4 is the pivot of all your play.

The thing is that white did not play the typical c2c4, d2d4, g2g3, Bg2, Nf3 setup as usual, but the London System with Bf4.
Compare it with one of the main lines in the Caro-Kann where white quite quickly exchanges the attacking bishop (f1) on d3 !
And in Bogo-Indian defense black is willing to give up the attacking bishop from f8 right away.
Also, psychologically speaking it is interesting to deprive the white players from their proud London System on f4 :)
Regarding the latter, in an article on a Dutch chess website GM Reinderman suggested to go for the London bishop on f4 right away with d7d6 and Nf6-h5 in the regular London System opening play.

OK, but the black structure f5-e6-d5 is like the Stonewall and the black square bishop then is a considerable asset for black.

The comparison with Caro-Kann makes sense. But there white wants to castle long o-o-o especially if he pushes h4-h5 before. The bishop at g6 or h7 then would exert pressure on the white king. Besides Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 develops the white queen with tempo gain, facilitating the intended o-o-o.

Bogo-Indian just like Nimzo-Indian parts with the bishop, but the pawn structure is not fixed yet and black can strive for d6, e5, c5 with the pawns on the colour of the exchanged bishop.

If black plays ...d6, then white usually plays h3 so as to make a hole for the bishop in case of ...Nh5. The London system in some sense is a reversed Reti-Lasker game.

As a London system player myself, I would be fairly pleased to see this sideline where I could give up my bad bishop for black's good bishop, since I was 'tricked' into playing against the Dutch with an awkward bishop on f4 due to the tricky 1...e6 move order. Also, the comparison with the decision by white in the Caro-Kann to exchange the light squared bishops, and black's decision here to exchange to dark squared bishops is slightly erroneous. In the main-line Caro-Kann, if the LSB does not go to d3, then it must go to either c4 or e2. e2 is obviously quite passive, and on c4, it ends up eating granite in the form of the strong pawn on e6. Ergo, exchanging bishops is the most popular continuation. In this position, if the bishop doesn't go to d6, then it must go to e7, or b4, both of which I think are potentially desirable squares. On b4 it could exchange itself for a white knight, thus increasing black's hold on the e4 square, or, if it chooses e7, could act as a useful kingside defender.