Mark's Opening

It's called an "Attack" ?....isn't that kinda stretching it ?

 I think I agree that the knight blocking in the c-pawn is the main weakness of Mark's Opening. (There's nothing to stop white castling queenside and playing e4, possibly supported by f3 though.)

 As for the main strengths of Mark's Opening, I'd say they're fast piece development, and control of the centre.

Here's a chess.com thread about this opening from twelve months ago: [LINK]

Here's one with a different move order from six years ago: [LINK]

Oh, and here are games with that opening dating back to 1952: [LINK]

You know, you could try just Googling it. As a rule, amateurs don't get to name chess openings after themselves, because masters have gotten there several decades (or centuries) earlier.

They look similar, but the London and the 'Jobava London' or Mark's opening, or whatever is very different. Committing your knight to Nc3 along with d4 and bf4 is a massive decision, and leads to a much more complicated and theoretical position than in the orthodox London where you can always push c3 block pressure on the queenside, and where you can reliably castle kingside. It may seem like a small difference, but it completely changes how the game develops. Any London-esque opening with Nc3 is going to be much more complicated, you will often have to delay castling or not castle at all or castle on the opposite side, you will often get crazy complex messy closed positions. The regular London, "The London System" is still a great opening, but is more predictable in the opening and early middle-game and similar themes/motifs/structures will often show up on the board over the course of the game cause the first 10 moves tend to result in a pretty narrow range of piece/pawn structures for both sides