Talk:London System

Closed game

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)

"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)

I guess "closed game" shouldn't link to "Closed Game", then 69.122.244.46 (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

QID, Rubinstein Variation

I am somewhat suspicious of this line. There were three QID games total at the London tournament ([1]), 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)

Terminology

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)

London System vs Colle System (and other points)

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)

Citations for dull and non-dynamic nature of the London System

Following the introduction of a [by whom?]/[citation required] tag in relation to the statement that the London System has been criticised for its non-dynamic nature, I have added some citations. I was only able to find six(!), but hopefully that is sufficient. It is of course well known on the chess circuit that the London System is one of the most boring options that White can play. The number of citations could easily be doubled if magazine articles were also included. I have added the exact references to illustrate the nature of the comments (most of which are from GM or IM level writers). Axad12 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

There's still the little matter of WP:NPOV. The London System is objectively a sound opening, and playing "boring" openings can be a legitimate strategy, especially if it angers the opponent. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but the point at stake is that the London System 'has faced criticism for its tedious nature and lack of dynamic play'.

The citations I provided demonstrate that it has indeed faced criticism for exactly those reasons.

There is another side to the argument, as you have said, but that does not change the fact that it has faced criticism. Maybe add something to the article to put the other side of the story (although it does already say that it has a solid reputation, which is of course true).

The London System divides opinion, of that there can be no doubt. Axad12 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

2 further points...

The article currently says that the London System 'came into fashion as a way of countering the Orthodox [defence to the] Queen's Gambit Declined [etc]'. Since the London System doesn't involve playing c4 and is thus not a form of Queen's Gambit, surely it would be more accurate to say that the London System was developed as a way of avoiding the Orthodox [defence to the] QGD'?

Also, re: the extended quote in the article in relation to the London Tournament of 1922... I'm not sure that I see the purpose of listing all of the top players that attended and mentioning the number of high quality games played at this tournament. The London System was actually only played on 7 occasions in this tournament, and I'm not aware that any of those 7 games are considered to be particularly great. For the record, the players who played the London System in that tournament (along with their positions in the final table, the game numbers in the tournament book and the game results) were as follows: Capablanca 1st/16 (game 73, won vs Reti), Alekhine 2nd/16 (game 26, won vs a very young Euwe), Rubinstein 4th/16 (game 105, a 13 move draw vs Capablanca), Tartakower 7th/16 (game 109, won vs Wahltuch), Maroczy (game 77, drew vs Tartakower) Watson 15th/16 (games 24 & 89, both lost, vs Euwe and Capablanca, who would both have beaten Watson fairly easily regardless of the opening). So, in all, 7 games out of a total of 120 at this tournament featured the London System, and White scored +3 =2 -2. Thus, unless I am missing something here, the opening was played neither notably frequently, nor with notable success, nor in any notable games.

That being the case, wouldn't it be more reasonable to remove the extended quote and simply say that the London System 'is named after the 1922 London Tournament, where the opening first came to public attention', or something to that effect? The extended quote is irrelevant.

The article also currently says 'Many of the games in the 1922 London Tournament featured the Queen's Indian Defence, Rubinstein Variation'. However, the tournament book (by Maroczy) records that there were only 2 QID games in the entire tournament (game 64 in round 8 (an irrelevant game between Atkins & Watson, where White was criticised in the tournament book for playing without a plan) and game 84 in round 11 (Vidmar as white beat Wahltuch)).

The article then states that 'later in the tournament' players began playing Bf4 and c3 because Bg5/c4/Nc3 was considered to be over-extending vs the QID. However, of the 3 games (#89, 105 & 109) featuring the London set-up which were played later than the two QID games mentioned directly above, all 3 featured d4/d5 set-ups rather than Queen's Indian formations. What possible logic can there be to saying Bg5/c4/Nc3 is overextending vs QID formations, so players began to play Bf4/c3 vs d5 formations?

I'd therefore suggest that the historical analysis of the London 1922 tournament in the article as it currently stands is completely false and should be removed. To be honest, whoever worded it couldn't have been more wrong if they had tried. Axad12 (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

An afterthought...

If the current article had been intended to say that London 1922 featured many games in the Queen's GAMBIT (rather than, as stated in the article, the Queen's INDIAN) then that would be correct, as the Queen's Gambit Declined was of course very popular in the 1920s.

However, that would still leave the question of whether there was really any evidence to the effect that (during the latter stages of London 1922) plans with c4/Nc3/Bg5 were considered to be 'overextending' vs a Queen's Gambit Declined set-up.

I would suggest that the answer to that question is 'no'. based on the following:

1) The number of games featuring the QGD with Bg5 actually increases in the latter stages of this tournament. There were 4 such games in the first 5 rounds of the tournament, 6 in the middle 5 rounds, and 8 in the last 5 rounds. (Specifically, 1 in Rd 11, 2 in Rd 12, 1 in Rd 13, 3 in Rd 14, and 1 in Rd 15, so no tailing off towards the end).

2) Most of these 18 games (including those in the later rounds) were played by White players in the very top echelons of world chess at the time (Capablanca, Alekhine, Rubinstein, Reti, Vidmar), suggesting that the world elite had not perceived some major drawback in the QGD with Bg5 at any stage during the London 1922 tournament.

3) The scores in those 18 games were 9 wins for White, 5 draws and 4 wins for Black, hardly suggesting any theoretical problems for White in the variation (if anything, suggesting problems for Black).

4) The frequency of games in the London System remained essentially stable throughout the tournament (2 in the first 5 rounds, 2 in the middle 5 rounds, 3 in the last 5 rounds). The ratio of 'QGD with Bg5' games vs 'London System' games thus actually increased as the tournament progressed rather than decreased.

If anyone has any evidence to support the idea presented in the article at present, that Bg5 lines in the QGD were under pressure in the latter stages of London 1922 and largely abandoned in favour of the London System with Bf4/c3, then please present it and we can discuss (probably with reference to the tournament book by Maroczy). If not, I'd strongly suggest that the material in the article about London 1922 is wrong and should be removed wholesale.

(Endnote: Bogoljubov played a couple of QGD games with Bf4 in this tournament, but the QGD with Bf4 is of course entirely different to the London System). Axad12 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Five possible corrections/clarifications to text of article

Five areas where the text of the article could perhaps be improved...

1: Quote from the article: ‘James Mason was the first well-known proponent of the London System’. Are we saying here that he was well-known as a chess player, or specifically as a player of the London System? Also, do we mean well-known now or in the latter part of the 19^th century? To be honest, I’m not convinced that James Mason necessarily qualifies as well-known under any of those criteria.

2: The section on ‘Principles’ (which should probably be renamed as ‘Set-up’, as it doesn’t discuss principles) says that ‘ideally’ White should develop Nf3/Nd2/Bf4/Bd3/d4/e3/c3. This raises the question of at what stage would the opening no longer qualify as a London System if some of those ‘ideal’ moves were not made, or if some of the pieces/pawns were moved to other squares instead. Since that issue is rather murky, it would probably be better to just say that ‘The London System consists of a set-up for White employing the following moves (which can be played in a variety of orders): d4/Nf3/Bf4/e3/Bd3/Nbd2/c3’. Also, the text as it currently stands implies incorrectly that the pieces are developed first, and only then are the pawns moved ‘to solidify the position’.

3: Quote from the article: ‘Modern play has often stressed the immediate 2.Bf4, however, forcing Black to play the London System’. However, it is White who plays the London System, not Black, so there is probably a better form of words here...

4: Quote from the article: ‘The modern London System is also referred to as the Mason variation’. Well, it is referred to in that way once, very briefly in the appendix of one source which is now rather old (Hooper & Whyld). It is not generally referred to in that way in the more modern books on the London System, and nor is that term used in common parlance. In reality this opening is only called ‘The London System’.      

5: In the section on 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 it says that ‘Play often goes 3…Bg7 4.e3 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0’ and the text then discusses various 6^th and 7^th moves for Black. It then says that ‘Afterwards, if unimpeded by Black’s moves, White ideally would like to build a pyramid of pawns centered on d4 and develop all minor pieces’. The use of the word ‘Afterwards’ is in error because by the time Black has played his 6^th and 7^th moves, White will already have played most of the moves required to do what it is described that he ‘ideally would like’ to do. Also ‘if unimpeded by Black’s moves’ is rather questionable, because the only moves White still needs to make at this point are c3 and Nbd2 and it isn’t entirely clear how Black could impede White from playing those moves in the very near future. Better probably just to say 'Afterwards White will complete his standard London System set-up with c3 and Nbd2'. Axad12 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is good to have someone actually paying attention to this article. I agree that it is not in good shape.

I can confirm that Mason was among the elite players of his day and was well-known. That's kind of a side issue. The real question is whether the name "Mason variation" for this line is one that readers might need to know or might look for. Hooper and Whyld, though it is more than 30 years old, is still in print and is the standard print English-language encyclopedia for chess. We shouldn't be citing other encyclopedias, but we can't ignore it either. If you really do not see it in recent books (I count more than half a dozen books about the London in Amazon, let alone books that mention it among other openings), then I suppose you could say that the line was "formerly" called the Mason variation.

The opening's origin in the London 1922 tournament is succinctly summarized in Donaldson's review of the book by Johnsen and Kovacevic (footnote 11): "This setup first came into fashion as a way for Black to meet hyper-modern setups at London 1922, but now the line is more commonly associated with White these days." That's it in a nutshell. All the stuff in the article about the QGD, Indian setups, etc., is just crap, as far as I know. The background material about the London tournament, while it may not be entirely crap, is irrelevant and unnecessary, and is unsourced. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

On the subject of London 1922...

The idea that you quote from Donaldson, that the London System was devised at London 1922 as a way for Black to meet hypermodern set-ups, is also entirely untrue. The list of opening variations at the back of the 1922 tournament book shows there were no games played there with hypermodern set-ups by White. The only game that started with a first move other than 1.e4 or 1.d4 (or 1.Nf3 with a quick transposition to d4 lines) was game 31, Tartakower vs Znosko-Borovsky, an English which started 1.c4 e5 - so no London type set-up.

In any case, the general idea that hypermodern set-ups were being employed in master play by White in 1922 is also untrue. My recollection is that the London System set-up, when played as Black vs the Reti, is called the 'New York variation', but the Reti didn't occur in master play until 1923, and the term New York variation presumably refers to a game in the New York tournament of 1924. (In any case, it is probably more accurate to say that in the New York variation Black plays the same set-up as he would in a Slav, which was becoming popular at that time. The similarity to the London System is probably entirely coincidental). Donaldson has his facts all wrong, but I think we can probably see vaguely where he was coming from...

On the subject of opening names (and specifically the 'Mason variation')...

While it is true that Hooper & Whyld is the standard chess encyclopaedia, it seems to me that it has inadvertently caused a significant problem in relation to openings nomenclature. In the appendix of opening lines at the back of their book, they decided that every single line (literally 100s of them, if not 1,000+, I don't have my copy in front of me) should each be given a name. No references were provided in the book to back up the nomenclature used, and if you think back to the fairly light openings literature from back when the book was first published it is fairly clear that the list of opening variation nomenclature in Hooper & Whyld significantly exceeded the actual terminology being used at that time.

One of the indirect results of this is that various obscure names for opening variations and subvariations (sourced ultimately from Hooper & Whyld) are now attached to 1,000,000s of games on chess.com, chessgames.com, chesstempo.com, etc. etc. when the names used have never been in wide use - and in a fair number of cases are (I would seriously suggest) essentially spurious. Anybody who has played chess for any amount of time and read any amount of openings literature is aware that there is an enormous corpus of openings nomenclature on large chess websites which bears no relationship to how those openings have ever been actually described in real life.

Just because someone somewhere once claimed in print that something was once called a certain name (without providing any evidence to back it up) does not mean that we should believe it. Unless there is a clear pre-Hooper & Whyld source I would suggest the term 'Mason variation' never existed in any real sense prior to the publication of Hooper & Whyld (and nor has it been used since).

Maybe there is an obscure magazine cutting somewhere from the dim and distant past which called it that, but that is not the same as the opening line having generally been referred to at any point in the past as 'The Mason variation'. Axad12 (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, re: James Mason...

Yes, I was aware that he was one of the top players in his day. The issue I was trying to raise was whether that means that he was 'well-known' to the public at large (outside of chess circles) and the answer to that, I would suggest, is probably no.

Also, the text as it currently stands calls him 'the first well-known proponent of the London System', which is a rather ambiguous choice of words, as it appears to be suggesting that he was specifically well-known at the time for using the London System, which I would suggest is also untrue (or, at the very least, it lacks verification through contemporary sources, which I expect that few editors would have the appetite to track down).

It would probably be better (and more accurate) to describe him as 'the first master level player to regularly employ the London System', as this is undoubtedly true and avoids any lack of clarity on what is being implied by the rather clumsy formulation of the current sentence and specifically by the term 'well-known'. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

For the record, here is Hooper & Whyld on the London System (page 192 of the Oxford Companion to Chess, 1987 edition): 'London Variation, 223, a line in the King's Indian Defence played several times at the London Tournament 1922. In the continuation that usually followed, 4...c5 5.e3 d6 6.c3, White's first six moves constitute the London System. This never became popular because of its lack of aggressiveness. Also 686, an opening in which the moves of the London System are played by Black, who thus develops the pieces harmoniously. Introduced in the game Reti-Capablanca, New York, 1924, this variation soon became the standard defence to the Reti Opening. The first four moves (up to 4...Bf5) are sometimes called the New York variation.'

Interestingly, Hooper & Whyld 1987 do not mention the 'Mason variation' and 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 is absent from the appendix of opening lines (it is only introduced in the 1992 second edition). In 1987 they seem to only consider the London System in the context of it being a response to the KID. This is to some extent erroneous in relation to London 1922, as in that tournament the London was played 3x vs the KID, once vs a Grunfeld set-up and 3 times vs 1...d5. Axad12 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Your rewrite of the sentence about Mason seems fine to me. It would be possible to straighten out the use of the phrase "well-known", but "first master level player" may be good enough; I am not sure that one usage is more precise than the other.

I am surprised and disappointed that Donaldson's characterization of the history is wrong, but I have looked over the London 1922 tournament book (using Google Books), and you are right, the "London System" was used in London, whereas the "New York variation" of the Reti was used in New York 1924. Looking at MCO-13, in which I wrote the section on the Reti opening, I see that I made the converse mistake, referring to ... Bf5 against the Reti opening as the "London system". (I do not remember why I did that, but I probably copied that mistake from some other source.) Bruce leverett (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you probably took it from the section of Hooper & Whyld that I quoted above, which would be entirely understandable given that it's an authoritative source - although whether it's correct on that particular point I'm not sure. These days the line in question seems to be called exclusively the New York variation, but maybe it was not always so...

At some point soon I will try to make wholesale changes to the London System article along the lines of the various points made in the notes above. However, I have to say that once I've made those changes (mostly changes to how things are worded and removing erroneous passages) the article will still be of rather poor quality compared to most Wikipedia articles on chess openings. Really it needs a root and branch rewrite to make it accord with the standards applied to other similar articles. Or, it needs to be dramatically reduced in length to remove the myopic obsession with 2nd and 3rd move possibilities.

The London System is, of course, 'anti-theory' and the article needs no long analysis. however, talking only of 2nd and 3rd moves is taking 'anti-theory' a bit far(!). Axad12 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Re-write

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)

Agree w/ you & Bruce that a rewrite was in order. Wow, it's a highly trafficked article. [2] --IHTS (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Retreat the bishop?

In this sentence:

'The idea of delaying the [Nf3] development is to avoid the famous line [1.d4 d5] 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qc2 Bf5, when White should retreat [the bishop] ingloriously to c1'.

should this be "retreat [the queen]"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9300:9E40:6945:5C81:562B:1E30 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Now corrected.

Incidentally, thank you to user Ihardlythinkso for making a number of (Wikipedia house style-related?) alterations to the re-write I did a few days ago.

Since the content remains pretty much the same, I assume that generally speaking you're in favour of the re-write? As I think I said before, it isn't perfect by any means, but it takes the article a lot closer to where it probably should be.

Incidentally, the list of players I included was the result of a quick database search. I just added the names of some notable players and some frequent recent users (the London System seems to have become quite popular in recent years at super-GM level in internet blitz). I've since realised that I omitted the names of some world champions who have used the system, which was probably remiss on my part... Axad12 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a note for user Ihardlythinkso, who is currently making a number of alterations to the article.

Re: Joe Gallagher's 'Beating the Anti-King's Indians', I have the book in front of me now and can confirm that the the correct publisher is Batsford and the correct date of first publication is 1996. Axad12 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. p.s. We need a pg no. for the Johnsen & Kovačević (2005) ref. (If you have the 2021 vers plz let know, plus its pg no.) --IHTS (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. There are two mentions of J&K in the article...

The first one (which isn't currently a reference, but probably should be?) is in the article section 'White Setup', and relates to the use of 2.Bf4 rather than 2.Nf3. This is on page 10 of J&K (at the start of Game 1).

The second one (which is currently a reference, although currently without page number), is at the foot of the article section on 'Black responses'. This is on page 160 of J&K (at the start of section 12E).

These page references relate to the 2005 edition. The 2021 version is, to the best of my knowledge, a straight reprint. (Gambit reprinted a huge swathe of their back catalogue in 2021/2, apparently because many of their books had become hard to find and were changing hands for silly money on eBay).

Many thanks for the numerous house style alterations you've made since I did the root and branch rewrite of the main text a week or so ago.

If I could add a request... I had originally intended to add wikilinks to Capablanca, Reti, and Reti Opening but didn't do so as Capablanca and Reti both include diacritics/accents over some of the letters (which I don't know how to access, but which I assumed would be necessary to make a functioning wikilink). I see that you've made the relevant correction to 'Kovacevic', so I wondered if you might also do the same on Capablanca and Reti.

If I can be of any further assistance on sources, references, etc. then just ask... Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Also added some links, if excessive just remove. Re diacriticals, there is a smattering of code tables on WP, but just copy/paste is easier & maybe better. (Technically diacriticals aren't required, but prev use in WP:CHESS articles does have inertia.) As the article stands it seems nicely compact & cogent, hate to be the one to deliver the news but few yrs ago decision was made re the eradication of use of the generic masculine pronoun common in all the chess literatures, and if history is any judge, at some point a non-WP:CHESS editor will come waltzing in to overwrite them all, spaghettifying the current text. --IHTS (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had another look at the text and have (I think) removed all uses of the generic masculine pronoun.

In the lead para I think you had changed some instances of (for example) 'his dark squared bishop' to 'their dark squared bishop'. From a style standpoint I think it is preferable to simply avoid pronouns altogether in this context and say 'the dark squared bishop'. It is White's dark squared bishop that is being moved, after all, so there can be no room for confusion.

Alternatively, if really necessary, 'the c1 bishop' would make things absolutely crystal clear. Axad12 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Methinks natural expression is always best. (For me dodging use of the chess masculine generic pronoun is like trying to find a painless way to draw blood. That said, you missed one: free hand to develop as he pleases.) --IHTS (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted.

That one (and another, in the Queen's Indian section) now amended. That should hopefully be the lot. Axad12 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't agree that the default masculine pronoun should be normalized just "because chess". It's "traditional", but this style of writing is no longer considered acceptable. I do agree with seeking alternatives to just lazily substituting "they/their/them". Singular they should be used only if you can't imagine any other way to say it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Never made those argument(s). My point is that really good writing that circumvents sing. masculine pronoun takes skill, maybe even professional writing skill, and the vast majority of WP editors (including myself) aren't that, so sentences end up more or less spaghetti. --IHTS (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The only point in this thread that bears any vague resemblance to what MaxBrowne2 says he disagrees with was when you stated the obvious historical fact that chess literature has usually used 'he'.

Seems eerily familiar to when I added citations to illustrate the historical fact that the London System had faced criticism, and then MaxBrowne2 said he disagreed with the validity of the criticism. Axad12 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Rapport-Jobava System

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)

The sec in this article doesn't preclude its own article. When that's available, the sec receives a hatnote, like {{Main|Jobava System}} (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)

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)

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)