75 ( +1 | -1 )
Combatting Practical White opening plans
There are some setups that are adopted mostly by club players to get good positions without knowing theory.
5.Bd3 and white continues with h3, sometimes c3 and Nbd2
This is a very solid setup and limits counterplay from black. The g7 bishop has been neutralised.
I am curious how others try and combat such setups. Any examples?
Another "club" player position that I got on my board as black went
4.Qc2 and again white continues with Bf4, Nbd2 and Bd3 or as in the game with a kingside fianchetto.
The game ended in a draw despite my attempts to attack on the QS.
What are the optimum piece positions, plans? I'm sure many club players will encounter such lines and so it should be interesting to see how people react.
164 ( +1 | -1 )
Solid? Yes; but is it superior?
I am certainly no expert on the queen's pawn (ugh...it makes me feel dirty just talking about it), but several things trouble me about this approach, and I offer them for what little they are worth. Is it (the London Attack, as 3. Bf4 is called) solid? Certainly white takes charge of the dark squares and builds an island at d4. But my take on the whole approach to the KID is that black foregoes immediate confrontation in the center in order to proceed with development, making a stab at the appropriate time. At first blush, this would seem easier if white has not grabbed more territory. d4 is nice and all, and it does (temporarily!) restrict black's KB, but white has a serious weakness on the white squares which black might do well to exploit.
White's piece placement is also problematic. The Bf4 is aggressive, sure, but it can also become a target. This mandates h3, which gives the B shelter on a strong diagonal, but its scope will be restricted by black's probable ...d6. The development of the QN can also be difficult if white shores up his d4 outpost with c3. Indeed, following a ...b7 by black, white's QN has a long trip to get into the game.
Finally, there is the issue of black's ...c5 which, depending on white's response, either open up the c- or d-file with drawish possibilities, or leave it half-open while white tries to make a go along the e-file--and I think in this case black's half-open file is more valuable.
Again, I don't know what I'm talking about; but I think against the KID white can afford to be more enterprising in the opening, and not merely be content with a strong but singular central outpost.
108 ( +1 | -1 )
I play London System, too.
(My GK rating is around 1450. So this is just an opinion from another casual player, not an advice or analysis at all)
For me, London system works fine. Acutally, all of my recent White games are London only.
IMHO, any system has its pros and cons. Against a stronger player, London system is a little lukewarm. However, London has its own pretty tricks which can surprise among 1300-1500 players.
bucklehead is right about the weakness of this formation, so to play London, it is good to know that you opponents will try to get advantage of it. I just don't know any other system that does not have any weakness. At first, I was losing initiatives as I could not see the weakness, but gradually, as I get used to it, I become able to see what the opponents are trying to do, ignoring his own weakness at some other squares. Just one example, Bf4 could be a target, but Bg3, hxg3 will open up for the rook to threat h7 square, which can be exploited in many ways.
In summary, if you play a 'system', you're limiting yourself in some extent. Among systems, London is not that bad, at least to me.
68 ( +1 | -1 )
This reminds me of the club players Sicilian outing, when they would play something like and an Italian game and get totally crushed because of lack of space.
The lines you gave aren't that challenging if you just want to create counterplay. Against the first you should play c5, Nbd7, and depending on later moves exchange on d4 and strive to play e5 as to either weaken d4 or force him to advance to d5. As for the second line doubt that you'll ever come across it again.
All in all I have to agree that this line are pretty drawish if your opponent knows his stuff. But since you're Black that should be OK for most of the times.
55 ( +1 | -1 )
You make it sound like we all are GMs :-)
There are lots of 2200> players (heck, even IMs and GMs) who keep scoring much better with "theoretically inferior" openings, simply because they create good practical chances and one has to be pretty darn strong player to make +/= = =/+ count...
There are GMs who play systems like 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 with great success. And there are club players who play Bayonet Attack because Kasparov says it gives small advantage after move 30.
IMHO openings are not so important at our level.
39 ( +1 | -1 )
IMHO openings are not so important at our level
Well, they are not very important, but to disregard them completely is another extreme. Even at our level, you are going to disadvantage yourself a lot if you play an opening against someone who is about as good (or should I say bad :))) as you are, but who knows that opening well. How many games have I won just because people don't know that in two knights defence (the variant with 4. Ng5) you are not supposed to play 5. ... Nd5.
39 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't want to stress the importance of the opening play since I don't belive in it, but basic knowledge is needed just like every other aspect of the game.
Oh by the way recent games in the two knights defence show that Nd5 is more playable that previously thought. Also hope you don't reply with 5.Nxf7, since that is dated and just a worthless strugle for White.
43 ( +1 | -1 )
None of the moves you marked with a "!?" deserve it. An early Bf4 followed by e3 is just a naive way not to lock the bishop behind the pawn chain (it makes you wonder whether they really understand the strategic goal of e4 after opening with d4). c3 doesn't even deserve mention, let alone praise. Play a straightforward, common-sense game and you should have nothing to fear from these systems.