I find it amusing that the london opening is referred to as the boring opening.  This is a solid opening for amateur players like myself that do not know alot of theory and it seems that experienced players try to downplay it by calling it boring.  If I am mistaken, please correct me and otherwise, please enlighten me.

Is this opening boring b/c black does not have a superior response to it and must progress along a path that leads to a draw?  If not, is it considered boring to experienced players that easily defeat it?  Boring is a subjective term and I would like to understand how it applies to this opening.  How do you guys feel about this opening? 

The london system is a solid opening.  It does not possess the excitement of the open games nor does it require as much theoretical knowledge as the open games. 

In case anyone doesn't know what this thead is about, the London System (1 d4  2 Nf3  3 Bf4) can be played against virtually any Black defense.  It is easy to play, yet somewhat unambitious.  Theoretically, Black can equalize, but White may have a "practical" advantage if the London System is White's main opening system.  That's because s/he is more likely to be familiar with the common middlegame themes that occur.  Fritz 9 or MCO-15 may think it's "=" (and they're probably right), but I've had excellent results with it for over twenty years.

When I play 1.d4 I always play the London system, it is hardly boring compared to 1.e4...e5.

i read somewhere that it is called "boring" because one of white's main goals with the opening is to restrict black's counterplay as much as possible - thus it is 'boring' insofar as games with less counterplay opportunities are such