How I like to play the London system

not really a lot of that is iffy since it includes some games with blunders plus at an intermediate level it doesn't matter

uh no only masters will know 20 move theory to take advantage of that 7%

Not really. 2.e4 has a 54% winrate after 1.d4 d5.

The total score for 2.e4 is ~61%.

the total score for 2.c4 is ~67%.

The total score for 2.Bf4 is ~65%.

It's a masters database. There is a reason they go for Queen's Gambit over a London consistently. Also, in the masters database, it has a larger sample size to show how well it scores compared to the less played London. 

Nickolay said the London was bad. Now he is saying that it is bad compared to other openings. Pick one, Nickolay. Stop using straw man after straw man.

Both are true. Learn a real opening like Queen's Gambit

whats so bad about the london?

Having the word “system” in the name means it’s worse? Makes sense. Totally.

You do realise the London actually has a lot of theory, right? People just play it as a system.

Have you not seen the Na3 lines? You also did not address any of the points I made. 

He’s definitely trolling. No one can be this oblivious and moronic.

i like how nickolay has conveniently ignored this.

bro getting jason repa vibes. Choosing the lowest rating and then belittling them. Hahaha. But i am only 1200, what can i say?

My word of advice about playing the London, it is a good opening to play, but please please please, learn how to play other openings. It is not good for improving because it only teaches you one type of structure that you can play against anything. If you really want to get better, do not play the London all the time, change it up, try some Catalin, Queens gambit etc.

Is English not the primary language spoken in Canada though?

You don’t need a high rating to look at an openings database.

Yes! At least we should try new openings and different structures in unrated games, very important for learning.

Believe me this is anything but unexpected. Also tf I know 1300s who know more about openings than I do, rating is only an average of performance throughout the entire game, not the opening.

Thread summarized so far:

• Shoddy opening play in the original post
• aditysaxena guy showcasing bad moves and acting like it's prep
• A bunch of intermediates arguing over Queen's Gambit in a London thread
• Intermediates disregarding the criticism of their criticism in favor of more debate on what opening is better when the win rates are almost identical
• Discussion on grades for some reason
• Rating insults

Definitely the Chess.com forums

Sad, but true. 

London still bad