Comments on https://lichess.org/@/mizant83/blog/my-favorite-anti-london-weapon/a4g9fKoo
In fact the London System is the reverse anti-Reti that Lasker devised.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102115
@tpr said in #2:
> In fact the London System is the reverse anti-Reti that Lasker devised.
> www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102115
That game is indeed one of the model Reti opening games. Now what's older - Reti opening or the London System?
On everything besides 2.c4 I just play 2...Bf5, a reversed London, and had White played 2.Bf4, there you have it, fighting fire with fire!
I do not agree with boring. There is beauty is systematic, solid, static plans that can shove off the weather of opponent shenanigans and gesticulations.
Maybe one ought to get off names for instances, and start really defining what grants a subset of previously names instance sequences (distinct "opening"), the glory of having the word "system" injected into it as a group of distinct "openings", not no more so distinct.
Then what is an opening (not the phase but the named ones). Those seem like obvious questions to the veterans, but here eternal newbie.
I play the same line but I play c5 after e3 and then castle instead of d6 then play d5 and Nc6 and it won me a state championship.
@LiamJoseph2011 said in #6:
> I play the same line but I play c5 after e3 and then castle instead of d6 then play d5 and Nc6 and it won me a state championship.
That's the Grunfeld setup, also good against the London.
@dboing said in #5:
> There is beauty [in] systematic, solid, static plans that can shove off the weather of opponent shenanigans and gesticulations.
...No, you're not describing beauty, you're describing convenience, which is usually at odds with beauty. Beauty requires creativity, and what you are describing is the intentional avoidance of creativity. Hence why so many people disdain the London System.
@forsoothplays said in #8:
>
That is the single game point of view. Thanks for addressing that. I find beauty in compact plans that can apply to many games.
But I agree it is more fun to discover than exploit, at many games point of view, still.
Creativity might also be in the eye of the beholder or the color of the chess units one is assigned on the board. Although while this is a 2 person game, one might still enjoy the beauty of the positional logic while losing (after creative single game struggle) perhaps. Constantly losing might get boring, though. I don't know I have not had to play against that. I play very slow, but I see many things not always through real games. So I might just have fun and see beauty in the ideas, not caring much about the win valeur as my aesthetic priority. I find chess theory more fun to dissect tbh than just learning by brute force experience.. never been good at that, productivity at tthe win level, not my pay grade.