The "Jobava-London" ?

Why is it called the Jobava London?

It certainly isn't Jobava's London (pun sort of intended).

It makes close to no sense.

Naroditsky has a video discussing how it almost has zero strategic correlation to the London so it is in fact a misnomer of sorts.

From what I can gather it's just a peculiar name invented by GM Williams but as it turns out it seems to be a bit of an afterthought.

What it actually is, IS a Chigorin (albeit, with opposite colours).

So I looked into it and checked old DBs to see who was the strongest player to have played it at least several times and what do you know... it was Alekhine!

Granted, it has been played earlier than that so it's hardly anything new but what I found most surprising was the variations he played. So modern!

You have to love Alekhine!

Considering even Fischer did NOT get formal recognition for his variation and to this day it's associated with Sozin and considering several players including the one and only Hans Niemann (Yep, he has quite the incising course on it), Mamedyarov as well as Olexander Bortnyk (who beat Jobava using the Jobava-London) actually play it better than Jobava, and considering it IS a Chigorin and possibly the strongest player to have played it more than a handful of times is Alekhine... my recommendation is to rename it to: The Chigorin-Alekhine.

The "Jobava-London" is a misnomer.

The proper name for it is the Jobava Attack.  People mistakingly add on the "London" piece of it because White plays Bf4 without c4, not realizing that there is a major difference between putting the Knight on c3 vs d2.

Saying the Jobava Attack is the Jobava-London would be like saying the Modern Defense (where the Knight goes to e7) is the "Modern-Pirc", where the Pirc sees ...Nf6 while the Modern does not.

There are major differences between the 3 openings:

London System - The Queen's Knight goes to d2

Jobava Attack - Knight goes to c3 and the other Knight holds off before going to f3, may not go to f3 at all

Barry Attack - Both Nf3 and Nc3 along with Bf4 are played early with Black having played Nf6, g6, and d5.

Transposition to a QP opening - White plays an early c4, even if it's after Nf3/Bf4, like 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.c4 Be7 5.Nc3 is still a QGD.

Hope this helps.

Hence - The Chigorin-Alekhine!

No, it has nothing to do at all.  Your argument is flawed.

That would be like saying the London is the Slav, the Colle is the Queen's Gambit Declined, etc.

1.d4 and 2.Nc3 is NOT a reversed Chigorin.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5, 3.Bg5 is a Veresov, 3.Bf4 is a Jobava Attack, 3.e4 dxe4 is a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, 3.e4 e6 is a French Defense.

Based on your flawed logic, 1.Nf3 e5?! is the Alekhine!

SMH!

When reading about 1.d4 sidelines, Boris Avrukh considered the Jobava London as part of the Veresov and. It does make sense as the knight is placed on c3 blocking the c-pawn from advancing. The Jobava London is more about development than about pawn structure which is what the Veresov is

It's not flawed logic, this is precisely how it is. Yes, 1.Nf3 e5 is a reversed colour Alekhine it's just that it doesn't work in this case because the extra tempo allows white to capture it before it can be pushed.

As for your other comments... I don't see how it would be like saying the London is the Slav. It seems like an arbitrary example that isn't really connected to anything.

Many lines in the English ARE reversed colours Sicilian, albeit a tempo up.

The KID is the KIA for all intended purposes.

Many Grunfeld lines are similar to Catalan lines.

This is hardly "my" opinion.

Once again, you are wrong.

The KID and KIA are nothing alike.  To play the Reverse Classical as Black is losing.  The reverse Saemisch and Reverse Fianchetto are nothing alike to the Fianchetto and Saemisch KID.  In most KIA positions, Black plays e6 instead of e5.  KIA vs Sicilian. KIA vs French, etc.  In those lines, f2-f4 is almost NEVER played as it weakens White's position because the center is not locked like it is in the Classical KID.  Instead, White plays h2-h4, bringing the Knight around from b1 to d2 to f1 to h2 to g4, a maneuver almost never seen in the KID.  There, one knight goes b8-c6-e7-g6, not b8-d8-f8-h7-g5, and the other goes g8-f6-d7-f6, whereas in the KIA, white does not retreat the Knight to move the f-pawn.

And to say the Veresov is the Chigorin but not see that the London is a reverse Slav just goes to show how naive you are.  Look at White's pawn structure and pieces.  In the Slav, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 - often times in the London, if Black plays ...c5 and leaves the tension there long enough, White will play dxc5.  How do you not see it?  Pawns on c3 and e3 (c6 and e6 in the Slav) with the Bishop outside the pawn chain on f4 (f5 in the Slav) and Knight developed to f3 (f6 in the Slav.  The Queen's Knight is often the last minor piece developed as it cannot go to its natural square, c3 for White, c6 for Black.  The Kings Bishop is also delayed as it is unknown early on if it wants to go to e2, d3, or b5 (e7, d6, or b4 in the Slav).

In fact, many London players play the Slav due to their similarities, and they are actually more similar than the KIA and KID, which are complete apples and oranges!

That said, there still are minor differences between the London and Slav that calling the London the "Reversed Slav" is just as flawed as calling the Jobava Attack the "Reversed Chigorin".

Thank you for taking the time to reply but to say that we are disagreeing will be an understatement so I don't see a point to continue.

Have a good day.

Cheers.