Reason not to play the London System as white

The London is certainly quite playable.

Many openings are playable, though, and there can be good reasons to pick one playable opening over another.

In the London's case, there are two main issues.

First, from an "objective" standpoint, black equalizes pretty quickly in at least a couple distinct lines. This isn't necessarily a huge issue, since even at the top levels having an "objective" advantage isn't as important as how well you understand the position.

Still, if we're looking for reasons not to play the London, that would be one.

Second, from a practical perspective, the positions reached from the black's best lines don't offer all that many winning chances.

This is different from other openings where you give black equality (or maybe even a slight edge), but get a lot of unbalanced play with decent winning chances.

Having said all that, in OTB play, even at the highest levels, the result of a game can very rarely be traced back to the opening chosen, so these aren't huge concerns.

Still, once the quality of play reaches a certain level, the London will start depriving you of winning chances. It's not by accident that top GMs don't use the London as the primary White option.

It works for them as the occasional surprise weapon, or a "safe" option when they don't want to risk much, but the positions are just a bit too sterile to yield a lot of winning chances once the quality of play reaches a certain level.

Taken to the extreme, you're not going to see many Londons at the top level of correspondence chess, for example. It's just too easy to play against.

It's still perfectly playable, of course, and at most levels of play OTB play the winning chances it gives are more than adequate.

Some players like Kamsky have used it more regularly with decent results, but it's still not his primary weapon with white.

He's also used it a lot more in blitz/rapid than he has in classical, and has only faced some of the most difficult lines fairly rarely (with unimpressive results).

Still, as mentioned, OTB so many mistakes are made outside the opening that so long as it's playable and doesn't result in mass liquidations early, you can get good results with it. Under those conditions, how well you understand the resulting positions is by far the biggest factor.

If we're looking for reasons not to play it, though, those would be the ones :)

Cheers!

In the London System as black I recommend the Hedgehog. it's 90% effective against begginers.

For example, after:
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 c5 5. O-O Bb7 6. c3 Be7 7. Nbd2 cxd4 8.exd4 O-O 9. Re1 d6 10. Qe2 Nbd7 11. Nf1 Re8 12. Ng3 a6 13. a4 Qc7

Beginners as white often self-destruct in about 7-8 moves in those kind of positions because they just don't know what to do.
Black can prepare the ...b5 break with activity and tactics in the queenside, ...d5 a more positional break which can give black advantage in the center, ...e5 may be a strong sometimes, and in some lines even a king-side pawn storm is possible.
But if white plays carefully and succeeds in neutralizing black's threats, then he can use his space advantage to prepare the c5 break or a king-side attack. So the Hedgehog is risky against stronger, more cautious players.

@OneOfTheQ #11
As far as I have seen annotated games in the last few years (and just checking on chessgames.com), the London system is the main choice for GM Kamsky, and it is in classical games. It suits him well because of his good technique.

Here's one Kamsky game featuring an unusual Greek gift :
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12592/757/

@achja

He plays it frequently, certainly, but as nearly as I can tell, he's only played it in a bit under half of his white games in the last couple years.

Part of this is precisely because of what I mentioned in my first post, which is that some lines of the London are just especially dreary for white (not unsound, not losing, not even worse, just very little play).

So, for example, when his opponents play 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5, he's only played the London about half of the time in his career, and most of those were earlier in his career. He's pretty much just stopped playing the London altogether there in last few years or so, opting for c4 instead.

Going for the London via that move order results in especially pleasant positions for black (and he's gotten some really bad positions out of the opening when trying the London against that move order, even when he's managed to swindle a win later), so he's started moving away from the London against that line.

If most of his opponents played that move order as black, Kamsky would be a lot less known for playing the London :)

Of course, ultimately, this just reinforces my point. The question was what reasons there might be not to play the London, and I gave a couple, while giving a nod to Kamsky for playing it fairly frequently, but not all the time.

Even he, though, probably the strongest semi-frequent player of the London, has started abandoning it when faced with particular lines, so that just adds to what I said in the first post :)

Cheers!

@OneOfTheQ #14
When did Kamsky stop playing the London in classical games ? Source ?

I agree with most have been said.
London kinda kills the play, but it's a sound opening so it will always be played.
#12 good reccomendation

a more or less model game in the style of london
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1840579

So, to sum up
London--> pros : sound setup
not too much theory
can kill your opponent from boredom
cons: black equalises without having to fight
if you start maining london you might become drawmaster
you can die from boredom too, not only your opponent

The london is being played as we speak in the millionaire open.

chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/millionaire-chess-2016-open/1/1/5

@achja: Maybe read what I said instead of just taking snippets :)

I said that in response to that move order for black, he's mostly stopped playing the London over the last few years.

I never said that he stopped "playing the London in classical games".

To think, I was worried I referred to the move order too much in my post, but you still managed to ignore it :)

Easy enough to see for yourself. Go to chesstempo's database, set up the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 and search for games where Kamsky's white.

You'll find that early in his career, he was pretty evenly split between playing 3.Bf4 and 3.c4, but in the last few years, almost all of the games from that position have gone 3.c4.

Looking up publicly available games and reading my full post before responding isn't rocket science :)

Cheers!

I don't agree that " black's best lines don't offer all that many winning chances."
My main problem with the London as white is black has too many good options like: King's indian, Queen's indian, 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.Nf3 e6 4.e3 Bd6, 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.Nf3 c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qc2 Bf5

Are all good ways to equalize without much trouble, and give black equal chances to white which doesn't happen in a lot of openings.

In short I think the London is an opening that requires a lot of practice and study to reach positions that doesn't give enough return for the amount of time you have to spend on it compared to other 1.d4 openings.

@andyquibler: Really? You think black's best lines against the London still give white a lot of winning chances?

We'll have to explore this the next time we see each other :)