London system after 1.e4

nice play, thanks for the tips, the caro is one of my favorites.

The line your playing is the Exchange Caro Kan.

I have played this line for over 10 years.

You are playing this line completely wrong!

The London System is 1.d4 Opening.

White should play 4.Bd3

You don’t play c3, unless they play Nc6 attacking d4.

If they don’t ever play Nc6, You could play c4 instead.

After 6. Bc4 the game transposes to the London system. Run the game analysis and see. After move 6 I recognized it was the London system and this is how naroditsky recommends to play the london as black and that’s what I tried to do. Ended up with 93% accuracy and a pretty decisive win against a higher rated opponent, not seeing how black played badly here

It is the London that transposes to the caro kann and not the other way around.

Yep, just like how the Anti-Colle transposes to the Slow Slav, NOT the other way around.

Both of the following are the Slow Slav:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.c4 (all other moves are bad) c6.

I was black in the original post, it was just something I noticed as I was going for my usual caro kann. I was like wait this is the London system, which it was. Started as a caro ended up a London after move 6. I personally do not like playing the London as black or white. My main point was just that white can turn the game into a London from the caro kann after 1.e4 if certain moves are played so caro players should probably have an answer for it.

The Caro Kann was first published in 1845.

The London System was first played in 1922.

This means the Caro Kan has 72 years of seniority!

This means the position started as Caro Kann with 1.e4 and stayed as Caro Kann.

It was never a London.

For the position to be London, you would have to play 1.d4.

Than we would say it started as London & transposed into Caro Kan.

——————————————

Also, Black isn’t playing a London in reverse because Black Bishop is on g4.

It would be similar to Torre Attack or Trompowsky, not London.

I like playing a "reversed" London with 1. e4. It's not exactly mirrored, but it's close enough to the London setup that I call it that.

Perhaps this line of the caro needs a discrete name? because the position after move 6 with black to move is classified as London system on the chess.com analysis tool. I dont know how I’m supposed to interpret that and I’m extremely confused lol

The c3 line you posted isn't always transposing with a London... Really black should be playing Bf5 immediately, at that point you're in a position worse than your typical London, and practically equal. The reason Bd3 is preferred over c3 is to prevent Bf5. I'm actually surprised more caro-kann players don't respond with Bf5 in that position, because the purpose of Bd3 is well understood. But I guess c3 is so uncommon they'd rather just try to transpose into the lines they do know.

As for the London transposition itself - it's not bad... but it's also not really a critical line, and almost everyone has to face a London at some point in their repertoire, so I don't think this is very testing. And it kind of begs the question why aren't you simply playing the london.

If I didn't want to play the CK exchange I just wouldn't trade the pawns in the first place, and instead play another one of the dozen or so great lines against the CK, I wouldn't settle for a London, that seems like weak sauce to me. Main benefit of a London is it's one setup you can play against anything but you're not even getting that benefit in this case, assuming you reach the London.

The London position for White looks below:

The Reversed London Position as Black is below:

If the Dark Bishop goes to g5, The Position is considered to be Torre Attack or Trompowsky. If Black does it with Bg4, They call it the Reversed Torre Attack or Reversed Trompowsky.

If the Dark Bishop stays on its home square locked behind it’s pawn chain, The position is called Colle.

If Black does it, They often call it Reversed Colle.

However, you have to be careful when it comes to Black because the Colle can sometimes be mistake as Slav or Semi-Slav.

Yes indeed, 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5 3.e3 cxd4 4.exd4 Nc6 and 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bf4 Nc6 is the very same position.

There is an argument between (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5) 4.Bd3 over 4.Bf4 at move four. The former allows 4...Nc6 5.c3 e5!? and the latter 4...Nc6 5.c3 Bf5, or even 5...f6!? (a weird computer move which actually is quite sound, positionally). And in any case, Nf3 from white at an early stage allows ...Bg4 with an easy game for Black- usually ...Bg4 is prevented by wasting a tempo on h2-h3.

But 4.c3 followed by Nf3, as in the #1 game, is just poor play.

First recorded instance of the London (which was not named the London System yet) was at the LaBourdonnais- McDonnell match in 1834, Blackburne was playing it since the early 1860's, and the same applies for the Irish master James Mason (according to J. Sonas' ratings the world's strongest player betweeen 1877 and 1878), who gave to the opening his first name: Mason Variation.

But this is neither the first, nor the last time you have no idea what you're talking about.

@Compadre_J You could argue the Bf5 line is still a "london" but it'd be a worse london than what you'd reach in an actual London - engine thinks it's practically all zeros, that doesn't happen in the London unless white plays a sub-optimal move. Exchanging off the c pawn for the e pawn while getting Bf5 in seems to have helped black for whatever reason.

Again I was just going off the fact that chess.com classifies the position after move 6 in the #1 game as "london system". I was black in the game, it seemed like a "london-like" position to me, just went with the danya strategy of offering a queen trade to open the a file, and played around that. Occasionally white will play like this against me in a game that starts similar to a caro kann exchange so I thought the game was interesting enough to talk about.

Can anyone explain why chess.com calls this position the london system but there is so much discourse in this thread about why it is not? Do we need to fact check chess.com on this?

Your own words have vindicated me.

All I had to do was quote and add red highlights.

My response to you is you are absolutely correct Maze!

The Line your showing is the Mason Variation, not the London.

The London System didn’t come around, until 1922 like I previously said.

——————————————

Another key thing worth noting is the move order used by James Mason.

The above move order today is something referred to as the Accelerated London.

The London system people know today is often played with 2.Nf3.

———————————

So the Mason variation in today standards would be considered to be Accelerated London

Which makes a huge difference because of the Qb6 line that Black can play.

If 2.Bf4, Than white can respond to 4…Qb6 with 5.Qb3 or 5.Qc2

If 2.Nf3, Than white will have to respond 4…Qb6 with 5.Nc3 which is pretty lame.

Completely Fine Position for white, but I think it is lame.

You don’t get the picture perfect c3 + e3 pawns in to make your Triangle of awesomeness.

Well they transpose into each other. But the caro kann is a much larger opening and has more relevance than the London system, so it gets to hold the name of those positions as its own variations.

The position you got was called a Carlsbad pawn structure. You can achieve it through many different openings. But once you're in that pawn structure, the plans are the same. That's why you find it "London-esque" and why typical London plans work out well. The thing is, they are also typical Exchange Caro Kann ideas as well.