Talk:London System

message: The intro says it usually results in a very closed game. The page for closed game defines it as any game that starts with 1. d4 d5. Something's off here. Subcelestial (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "A closed game" (lowercase c, g) means a position in which the pawns form chains blocking the centre of the board -- for instance, white pawns on c3, d4, e5, black pawns on c4, d5, e6. The opening 1. d4 d5 is known as the Closed Game because it often leads to closed games. 2.25.133.193 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess "closed game" shouldn't link to "Closed Game", then 69.122.244.46 (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed game

message: I am somewhat suspicious of this line. There were three QID games total at the London tournament (), all three what is now known as the Kasparov Variation with 4. Nc3, and only two of which featured an early Bg5. Moreover I am completely unaware of the name "Rubinstein Variation" in the QID, but there is a Rubinstein Attack in the Orthodox QGD. Even so that particular variation only featured a few times, and everything said in the body of the article about it is generally true of the QGD after 4. Bg5 ... thoughts? 71.14.61.55 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  QID, Rubinstein Variation 

message: Under no circumstances should you cite 365Chess for terminology.  In the context of chess opening discussion, reliable sources would be things like published books; especially, for example, a monograph about the London, but it would be OK to cite a book about openings in general, or some other normal chess book by a recognized authority, such as a GM, or whatever.  Even articles in magazines or on websites can be OK, depending on the author (sites like 365Chess do not have an author, so they have no more authority than ourselves).
I know that we have many articles about openings in which reliability of sources has been neglected; but when you have a serious question about terminology, such as you have here, be prepared to cite a legitimate source. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I've removed the sentence (in the lead section) which said that: 
'The contrast [between the Colle & the London System] is especially apparent when comparing the Colle System and the Accelerated London System, which develops the dark-squared bishop [to f4] a move earlier than the typical London System.'
The accelerated London move order with 2.Bf4 is just a transpositional device whereby White plays Bf4 before Nf3 (rather than the other way round). The difference between the Colle and the London does not become 'especially apparent' by reversing the order in which a couple of moves are played.
Other points re: the article at present:
1) The section on 'Principles' is just a description of the standard London set-up, and contains nothing about the principles of how White plays the London System (which would obviously relate to how White plays after adopting that set-up).
2) The great majority of the article discusses Black options only on moves 2 and 3. It would be a significant advance here to say that Black can opt for a range of set-ups (e.g. King's Indian set-up, Queen's Indian set-up, Queen's Gambit Declined set-up, mirror set-up (i.e. Black also adopts the London), treating the position as a reversed Slav, systems where Black opts for a quick Qb6, etc, etc). This would be an easy way of pushing the analysis out towards move 6 or 7 and giving some idea of the play that was likely to develop. 
3) The accelerated London System move order with 2.Bf4 is treated in the article as a separate variation when really it is only a very minor move order finesse. The difference between the normal (2.Nf3/3.Bf4) and accelerated (2.Bf4 and later Nf3) move orders can only be properly explained by describing what White is trying to avoid by adopting 2.Bf4 - a detail which is currently missing from the article.
4) On the great majority of occasions when White opts for the London System he'll end up being able to play the full standard set-up with Bf4/Nf3/Nd2/Bd3 and pawns on e3/d4/c3. There isn't much that Black can do to prevent him from doing that, so the exact move order employed in getting to that stage is really rather irrelevant - but at present it is the main topic of the article. 
5) The article would be significantly improved if it moved away from discussion of (a) minor transpositions by White and Black in the first 3 moves, and (b) static piece set-ups, and instead discussed how the London System is actually played. For example, at present the article says that the main difference between the London and the Colle is that in the London the bishop is on f4 rather than c1 - but the real difference between these 2 systems (in broad terms) is that in the Colle White plays for e3-e4, prompting exchanges and an opening of the position after which White hopes to stand better, whereas in the London (again in broad terms) White usually plays for control of e5, often occupying it with a knight, and tries to keep the position closed.     
The coverage of the London System in this article is very superficial compared to other Wikipedia articles on chess openings.Axad12 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  London System vs Colle System (and other points) 

message: Following recent posts I've re-written the majority of the article to resolve the various issues.
For the time being I've refrained from adding additional citations, text links  etc., pending comment from other editors.
To be honest, I don't think that what I've done here is particularly definitive, or that it stands up particularly well against other Wikipedia pages on openings. However, I do think that this re-write represents a decent step forward compared to what the article used to say, especially in terms of historical context and general overview of the variations.
Any thoughts? Axad12 (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/ you & Bruce that a rewrite was in order. Wow, it's a highly trafficked article.  --IHTS (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: I think that it's inaccurate to place the Rapport-Jobava System as a subsection of the London System page, as while it's called the 'Jobava London' frequently, the openings share little in common other than the idea in both openings to develop the dark-squared bishop off of its starting square before playing e3, so that the DSB's mobility isn't harmed. Similar ideas arise in the Semi-Slav as White, the Caro-Kann as Black, as well as various Sicilian lines as both sides. 
Given that one of the first moves in the Rapport-Jobava system is Nc3, preventing one of the main ideas in the London System in exchange for more pressure on d5 and c7, as well as having specific independent theory and variations (after 3. Bf4, the responses e6, c5, a6, Bf5, c6, and g6 have all been played at least 200 times by FIDE-rated 2200+ games, despite being of varying quality), the Rapport-Jobava System is distinct enough from the London System to have its own page. Shu Pu'er (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The sec in this article doesn't preclude its own article. When that's available, the sec receives a hatnote, like  (see WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE). Creating the Jobava System article just needs a motivated editor armed w/ WP:RS. You can do it! --IHTS (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suppose I'm going to be hunting down some citations for the next few days! Many thanks for informing me of that, as I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia -- hopefully it goes well! Shu Pu'er (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Just a note to say that I entirely agree with your comment re: the Jobava London really being an entirely separate opening and not really part of the London System. When I did a root and branch re-write of the article a fortnight or so ago I left the pre-existing bit about the Jobava London in the article, despite reservations, mainly on the basis that the Jobava London isn't discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia. A new article just for the Jobava seems like the best way forward to me. Axad12 (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapport-Jobava System