If you are afraid of the London system, you need to study it.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
I'm scared of it. Not the one with 2. Nc3 though, the Jobava. That's rather anti-positional. Telling someone they only need to study the most complex of all openings is a bit of a tall order. Admittedly, many don't know how to play it but Magnus plays it.
Calling London the most complex opening is really strange, I feel like there are countless of options for black that all proove at least equal. Even sub-optimal moves can lead to equality. For example, as a chigorin player, I have had to play a variation with an early Nc6, this is my current score against the London.
I strongly believe that even with this sub-optimal Nc6 move, black is equal. Not better, most variations get very drawish, but you need to expect this if you play the london (not Jobava). Dont get me wrong, London is a fine opening, but many of the positions are drawish and the better player can play for a win. But the opening itself will never be the winning factor in my opinion.
There's an analogy. 1. b3 is supposed to be a system opening but it isn't. Played well, 2. Bb2 is incorrect. Played as a system opening, 2. Bb2 is correct. But 2. Bb2 is not white's strongest second move.
It's very similar with the London, where it can be played by weak players as a system opening whereby they play moves by rote. It can also be played by very strong players and for them it's a transpositional opening which is creating its own theory. If that sequence of moves where black plays g5 equalises or better for black then white has misplayed. In this case, the error was obvious. Clamp down on g5 if ... g5 is a threat. If it isn't a threat then allow it. Simple logic.
I just dont think that there are any lines for white where "if equalised white has misplayed" against most defences from black. I agree that it can be played on any level due to its solidity and passivity, but that does not automatically mean that there are an advantage to be found - not that thats a problem anyhow. Most london players play the opening to get out of the opening with an okay position.
The implication was that white has misplayed if equalisation occurs in half a dozen moves. We were discussing a line where black plays ...g5, hitting white's bishop and it seems to be a justifiable response by black, which seems to cause white problems and maybe equalise.
If it does equalise, then, since white could obviously prevent the line in question, allowing it is therefore an error by white, who has misplayed. Very simple logic.
It isn't about "what most London players do" but about "what can be done by using the London".
Okay, let me rephrase the comment. Because of the passivity of the modest london setup, there are not really many setups from black that white can prevent. Most of these setups, offer black equality if played correctly. I dont believe that there is any forcing way to play the london for an advantage.
When I said most people I was reffering to that most london players dont want an opening advantade, they just want to survive the opening without knowing any theory - and then london is a fine choice.
i hope i dont make it sound like im being too harsh on the london though. Its public reputation has improved drastically in the 21st century and with the rise of transpositional possibilities with the jobava "london" its reputation has been cemented at virtually all levels. The fact it was played in the last world championship is quite telling, but then again it also reflects a larger trend in super GM prep these days; the element of surprise is just as important if not more than theoretical edge. The top players who use the london dont go for the system right away but try to find novelties like early c4 instead of c3