Annotated chess game

I like it when you annotate these kind of games.

I've been experimenting with the London System, so this starts with d4 and then Whites second move is Bf4, I'm not sure if this is sound as an opening Id be interested to know peoples thoughts on it, I struggle learning openings and I have read that this opening can be sound against many of Blacks responses.

Never heard of it.

My favourite!  

In fact, one of my students after 1.d4 d5 was playing Nc3 or ...Nc6 before advancing the c pawn. I told her that this is not a good idea because in these kind of openings, the c pawns are just like central pawns. The reason is that in 1.d4 d5 openings we need the c pawns, and it is for the reason that you just mentioned, Charles. Except, that you explained it even better so, and what's more is that I will be showing her this annotation when I am finished commenting on it as posted in the Chess Problems Lovers club.

I agree by experience. It's easier to play again this.

In contrast, I would fianchettoed with 4.g3 because I like a nice long diagonal for, at least, one of my B's.

Here, Nb5 almost forces 5. Bd3, BxB, 6. cxd3. Whether it is good or not, it's hard to say for me.

This I thought was the natural progression in the London System, but I'm not so sure, I did think about playing c3 to perhaps stop Nb4 at some point, but I felt this move opens the diagonal for my LSB and also further protects d4.

4. e3 is fine

I see why, as then he'd continue following up with a later b2-b4 which also brings about a solid pawn chain.

I don't know if I agree with them.

This is my favourite setup with white pieces, and I can't see anything bad with it. Sure, black's lsb is looking straight into white's position, but white can play confortably "around" the white diagonal, developing and harassing it with good prospects.

Again and please correct me if I am wrong but the main idea from this set up it that the DSB is outside of the pawn structure, however I am always a little mindful that the Bishop could get trapped.

You are right again.

I think White wants to keep his bishop against a move like ...Nh5 at some point.

Or, maybe, he wants to then follow up with 7.g4, but I agree with Charles.

Wasn't I who played white in this game? Sure?  

Charles I feel you are correct here, my thoughts behind this move were to stop Ng4 and also the possibility of playing g4 to attack the Bishop at some point. I must admit that at this point I was wondering what to do with my LSB as the London set up recommends to place it on d3, in hindsight I perhaps should of considered Bb5.

White's DSB is what I like to call 'a good bad bishop'. You can get bad good bishops, too, especially in the end game.

At this point I realised my mistake of playing h3 as I wanted to play Bg3 here swapping of the Bishops and taking back with hxg3 and I feel this would have been beneficial as my Rook then is on the open h file.

In fact, I also would've played this.

Here I play always Ne5. The N is secure, black can only exchange it for his dsb, which nobody does, as it would leave white's dsb on the board with no conunterpart.

This is the mild downside of the previous move. However, white can now play Nd2, exchanging the dominating black lsb. On the other side, black can now play BxBf4, and I am not too confortable with this f4 resulting pawn. Moreover, it deprives me from my dsb, which is a powerful piece in my attack plan.

Interesting. I probably would have played the knight myself, but the bishop wopuld have been worth some thought. The closed nature of the position - well, semi-closed - appears to favour thr knights over the bishops. But there remains reasonable scope for the 'good' LSB, enough to persuade me to keep it.

I agree with ION and also would've played this.

Yes. I would've castled, at once.

This is the downside to not having played Ne5 before.

That would probably be best for him.

No good either...

NxN+...