The Boring System
When you go out to play a game of chess, what do you hope for? A win would be nice, naturally, and I don't suppose many of us would keep playing unless we won a few. But there's little satisfaction in beating much weaker opponents, so we must want more than that. Being made to think, seeing ideas that we haven't seen before, taking the other guy on in a real struggle... isn't that what it's about?
How, then, to explain a game like this? White plays the dullest opening he can think of; Black goes along with it. White offers a draw at move 15. Move 15! The position more than justifies the offer, and if we were two grandmasters playing for prize money, well, maybe it would all be understandable. But this is two club players trying to spend their evening doing something they enjoy. I played on a while in the hope that something would happen, but it never looked likely. Can either of us enjoyed this game? I know that I didn't.
Well, people will play the London System and suchlike against me from time to time and there isn't much point in whinging about it. We can only control our own side of the board, and certainly I must share the blame for the exchanges in moves 10-15 that killed this game off. Still, it's an opening where it's really quite hard to take White out of autopilot, if that's the way he wants to play, and the resulting positions seem to me to be tedious. So what to do about it? Perhaps it's 3 ... d5 that's the mistake - not objectively, of course, but since Ne5 is one of the automatic moves that White intends to play Black might at least be able to make him think a bit by playing some system with ... d6.
If any London System (or Colle) players would care to explain to me how the opening does in fact lead to interesting games - or even better, which Black variations they dislike meeting! - I'd be glad to hear about it...
How, then, to explain a game like this? White plays the dullest opening he can think of; Black goes along with it. White offers a draw at move 15. Move 15! The position more than justifies the offer, and if we were two grandmasters playing for prize money, well, maybe it would all be understandable. But this is two club players trying to spend their evening doing something they enjoy. I played on a while in the hope that something would happen, but it never looked likely. Can either of us enjoyed this game? I know that I didn't.
Well, people will play the London System and suchlike against me from time to time and there isn't much point in whinging about it. We can only control our own side of the board, and certainly I must share the blame for the exchanges in moves 10-15 that killed this game off. Still, it's an opening where it's really quite hard to take White out of autopilot, if that's the way he wants to play, and the resulting positions seem to me to be tedious. So what to do about it? Perhaps it's 3 ... d5 that's the mistake - not objectively, of course, but since Ne5 is one of the automatic moves that White intends to play Black might at least be able to make him think a bit by playing some system with ... d6.
If any London System (or Colle) players would care to explain to me how the opening does in fact lead to interesting games - or even better, which Black variations they dislike meeting! - I'd be glad to hear about it...
Comments
I guess Boring System players don't want to risk the loss to go for the win, and tend to be more competitive over a range of games than during different ones - they're playing a 'percentage' game, I guess.
I am gonna resend the invite to Phil Myers to be a blogger - inspired by this article, and to get more of the club blogging.
Now the London system is a pain, and maybe you could have tried to castle queenside and basically take further risks to make the game more dynamic. I will try and find some GM game examples where White gets crushed playing the London system as it is also one of my pet peeves as well to play against.
Best wishes
Tryfon
I am a friend of T. Gavriel's and he invited me (and everyone else at Chessworld) to look at your blog. You pose an interesting problem, if not an interesting game, and I think I may have an idea you can use the next time you encounter this system.
First, let's consider White's mindset which leads to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4. White is saying essentially he has no real ambition to win or mix it up with you in any kind of complicated struggle, would like to be out of your book as soon as possible, and plans to play simple developmental chess move by move and piece by piece. Perhaps he wants to save time in the opening and begin his real thinking in the middlegame.
Now, our problem is how to thwart this. White wants a classical game. What's unclassical then? Fianchetto. White wants a simple game. What's not simple? Fianchetto. White announces he does not want to think in the opening. He is going to play what he is going to play no matter what you do. What is the consequence of this? Sure, White saves time, but he puts no pressure on you. You can place your pieces on optimal squares because White has announced he doesn't care if you do. What is the optimal position for a Bishop? Answer: long diagonal. I bet you're getting the picture of what my recommendation will be.
In closing let me post a game that typifies a player of Black who reasoned the same way I just did and gave White precisely the kind of game he really would have preferred not to play. It's one of my all-time favorite chess games because of Black's pawn position after move 20. The key move is 22...e4, creating an attacking wedge to dislodge the King's defenders. I've emulated this idea in my own games against "do-nothing" openers to good effect.
[Event "Warsaw AIG Life rapid"]
[Site "Warsaw"]
[Date "2005.12.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Olejarczyk,Bogdan"]
[Black "Balogh,Csaba"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A47"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 b6 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.e3 g6 5.h3 Bg7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 d5 8.Nbd2 Nbd7 9.Ne5 e6 10.c3 c5 11.Ndf3 Ne4 12.Nxd7 Qxd7 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.f3 Nd6 15.Qe1 f6 16.Ng4 h5 17.Nf2 e5 18.Bh2 Rae8 19.Bd3 f5 20.dxc5 bxc5 21.Qd2 Bh6 22.Qe2 e4 23.fxe4 fxe4 24.Ba6 Ba8 25.Nh1 Nf5 26.Bf4 Bxf4 27.Rxf4 c4 28.Bb5 Rb8 29.Ba4 Qc5 30.Re1 Rf7 31.Kh2 Rbf8 32.g4 Nh4 33.Rxf7 Rxf7 34.Ng3 Qd6 35.Rf1 Nf3+ 36.Kg2 h4 37.Qf2 hxg3 38.Qxg3 Qxg3+ 39.Kxg3 Ne5 40.Rf4 Nd3 41.Rxf7 Kxf7 42.b3 Nc5 43.Bb5 a6 44.b4 axb5 45.bxc5 b4 0-1
Cheers,
Dan Quigley
I think we're all agreed that Black hardly need be afraid in this type of variation, and probably ought to be trying to find some way to mix things up. I think that my own problem may be a tendency to pessimistic evaluations. In this game, on getting sight of a clear but dull equality, I was far too willing to head for it by exchanging all those pieces; just to avoid (marginally) more interesting lines where I wrongly felt that I was worse.
Actually, over-pessimism caused mistakes in the second game of the season too... I'll try to blog on this later.
I remember GM Summerscale thrashing me in a certain way in blitz chess, and checking the Master collection there is a logical antidote - target quickly the b2 square where the bishop has just vacated. There are at least six example games in the letsplaychess.com master collection.
Here is a thread created on the site about it:
http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/forums_thread_show_one_posteronleftstyle.asp?forumid=27&ThreadID=8023737#message8024005
Here is an example game :
Agababean,Naira
vs.
Nielsen,Peter Heine 2638
2004, 3rd ACP Blitz Prelim1 - Round 11, playchess.com INT, ECO D02
Queens pawn game
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 Qb6 5.Qc1 Nc6 6.c3 cxd4 7.exd4 Bf5 8.Nbd2 Rc8 9.Nb3 Nb4 10.Be2 Nc2+ 11.Kf1 Nxa1 12.Qxa1 e6 13.h3 Be7 14.Nh4 O-O 15.Nxf5 exf5 16.f3 Nh5 17.Bh2 Bd6 18.g4 Bxh2 19.gxh5 Bg3 20.Kg2 f4 21.Bd3 Rfe8 22.Qb1 Qh6 23.Bf5 Re2+ 24.Kg1 Rce8 0-1
Notice the quick c5 followed by Qb6 targetting b2.
Short - Kasparov from, if memory serves, one of the World Cup tournaments would fit the bill.
First, let's consider White's mindset which leads to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4. White is saying essentially he has no real ambition to win or mix it up with you in any kind of complicated struggle
The second part of this statement may well be true but that doesn't necessarily mean White has 'no real ambition to win'.
There are plenty of ways to play for a win and keeping everything solid is just as valid as some mad kingside attack.
e.g. compare Kasparov - Karpov, game 24 from their 4th match and Karpov-Kasparov game 24 from their second match.
[Site "Skelleftea"]
[Date "1989"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Short, Nigel D"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2660"]
[BlackElo "2775"]
[ECO "A46"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c6 3. Bf4 d6 4. h3 Qb6 5. b3 c5 6. dxc5 Qxc5 7. c4 g6 8.
Nc3 Bg7 9. Rc1 Bf5 10. Be3 Qa5 11. Bd2 Qd8 12. Nd4 Be4 13. e3 Nc6 14. Nde2
Bd3 15. Nf4 Bxf1 16. Kxf1 O-O 17. g3 e6 18. Kg2 d5 19. cxd5 exd5 20. Qf3 d4
21. Ncd5 Nxd5 22. Qxd5 Qe7 23. Rhe1 Rad8 24. Qc5 Qd7 25. e4 Ne5 26. Red1 b6
27. Qc7 Qb5 28. Qxa7 g5 29. Qa4 Qxa4 30. bxa4 gxf4 31. gxf4 Nd3 32. Rc6 Nb2
33. Rdc1 Nxa4 34. f5 Rfe8 35. f3 Ra8 36. Kh1 Nc5 37. Rg1 Kh8 38. Rc7 Rf8
39. Bf4 Rac8 40. Re7 Rce8 41. Rc7 Nd3 42. Bd6 Rg8 43. Rxf7 Be5 44. Rxg8+
Rxg8 45. Rd7 Nf2#
0-1
Looking online at some games, the Kings Indian has been played against it with decent success. Is this a good idea?