Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

The point I made was that if there is nothing special about any of the opening moves at amateur level then none of these openings like a3 Sicilian, which you defended, are special either. Even though a gams is not necessarily decided by the opening, a bad opening is still a bad opening.

It's better to learn how to play a good opening and then improve on middlegame and sndgams play from there as that improves all factors.

Even if you often outplay your opponents in the middlegams/endgame, you can go much further by also working on your opening play, especially not playing absolute trash like the bongcloud.

Also the Benoni is actually a decent opening.

You actually totally missed my point. I never said there was anything wrong with playing dry positions, if that's the kind of thing you like. The problem is inferior openings. They will provide you with much poorer winning chances.

You can still play a good, dry opening.

Endgame play is important but opening play is also important. If you play a good opening, then you will have trumps in your position which you can utilise in the middlegame which can then be converted into a favourable endgame.

Who said that they think chess is easy? Very broad assumptions you're making.

There aren’t too many winning chances for both sides. At the highest level, it’s very drawish

hm

This is such a bizzare thread.This thread isn't really about an analysis of  the London Opening,what white benifts from  vs  what white surrenders to black ,the standard technical evaluation of the pluses and minuses inherent in all openings, but rather a screed on the perceived character failings of those who choose to play the London system.Those who choose to criticize London players are basically just making unfounded assumptions,"should" statements are ripe with distortions. Claims London players will never learn X,Y,or Z about the game are just unfounded claims, said players may have memorized Kmoch's book on pawns and appreciate intricate play, yet prefer the London. You cannot infer personal motivation based upon what chess opening someone chooses to play, let alone their views upon chess in general. Much of this thread is just unfounded assumptions, and have all the merit of any overgeneralization---which is absolutely none at all. In fact,much of this thread is just pompous, like criticizing people who like chocolate because they prefer it to vanilla.

You are misunderstanding the game of chess by saying it's purely about personal tastes. Chess is a game of pure information and ultimately some moves are just better than others. That's how it works.

When we consider this, the London is simply an inferior option to the Queen's Gambit as it doesn't challenge the centre. The London is technically flawed as it brings out the bishop early away from the defence of b2 so that after e3, white has issues with queenside which can be exploited. Being a tempo up, white kind of gets away with it. A tempo down in the Slav, black doesn't get away with this.

The other thing which is technically true is that the London is very easy to play. When beginners are taught the opening, they are sold on the idea that it makes chess easy for them. All they have to do is make the same moves every game and be fine. This absolutely is stunting for chess development as they are learning nothing more about the game.

You compare it to vanilla and chocolate ice cream when in fact the London is more like rice. All they can ever do is boil rice because that's easy and the only thing they know how to do, instead of trying pizza, paella or curry. There's no point trying any of those as they would be too difficult to cook. Just stick with rice!

Becoming attached to an opening which is inferior is totally gratuitous, especially to the point where you become offended and call others "pompous".

Sure, no-one has to listen and they can continue to play the London as much as they like. For those who feel dissatisfied with the London, however, those who are sold on a dream of easy chess and told "No, you're not good enough for the Queen's Gambit or Ruy Lopez! You just need to play simple stuff like the London!", for those who actually want to improve at chess, there is a better way.

The London doesn't help that. I'm not just going by my opinion. I'm also considering the opinion of IM Andras Toth. If you would like to watch the video on the 1st page, maybe you will understand.

The London is not a very competitive opening - a part of the point of it at the lower levels is hoping the opponent doesn't know the basics and does something stupid.

If you look at the lichess "all players" database, black's main standard opening move three in the diagram should be c5, and from that he actually wins slightly more than white. A similar situation occurs in the master's database that black does a lot worse by playing something other than c5. And after playing improperly cheap tactics like Nc3-b5-c7 with a fork on the king and the rook or sometimes white manages to get both bishops and also the queen maybe around black's queenside and ends up doing things like checking and trapping the rook. I'm embarrassed to say this sort of thing has happened to me a few times on the black side before I knew how to play against it.

These attacks are all farce. None of that should ever happen at all in the London and that is part of why it gets a bad reputation.

As a philosophical idea it may have some merit - similar to the Zuckertort or Colle systems. Really though, hard to argue a case for it rather than for example the Queen's Gambit.

This is one of the absolute main lines of the London.

At master level, this position is almost always a draw. This is best play from both players and on move 6, a drawn position is reached.

If you want to say that it's different at amateur level, then you're right. This position is more often winning for black.

There are some variations within these lines but they all have similar results or are often worse for white. White can try other moves to play for an advantage and some of them are ok whereas others are just making concessions.

Thanks! 😊 Let me know if you need anymore advice! 😉

This line gets a lot of draws because too many players choose 7.Qc1 or 7.Qb3 - going the quiet route, to avoid complications.

But 7.dxc5 instead? Now we've got a game.

Looks natural enough, right? Well ... black's already worse. White is +1.5 already, at move 9 ...

An example continuation:

White can abandon the protection of his d2 knight, because it's poisoned. (If Black takes ...QxN, then Qxa6, and Black's best move is to: resign.)

Or, if black wants to try quicker, natural developing moves, with an eye to castling quick and getting his king safe:

And black's, yet again, gasping for air.

With the London, there's often venom lurking in seemingly quiet positions - especially if white is an experienced player.

A lot of players don't realize this, though, because the London players they face often stick to the same moves and structure, and rarely vary.

But an adept London player knows when to change the structure, when to vary, when to transpose ...

The London can be far more potent and dynamic than it gets credit for.

Simply put, it's incredibly boring to play against.

That's great. If the London player is playing engine precision moves against someone who plays imprecise human moves then white will have an advantage.

The issue with your analysis is that you played inferior moves for black instead of playing the correct moves and then say "look how much worse black is doing".

You played the imprecise move Bg6 for black yourself and said black is doing worse instead of the correct move e5 or the most popular move at master level Ne4.

Of course you can say "well at amateur level they wouldn't play that" but the same applies to the London player that they probably wouldn't find all these precise moves you show without analysis. I can do the same the other way around.

Here we can see that time and time again, it is in fact the London player who is gasping for air. No, they are not just gasping for air. They are suffocating under the lifeless pawn pyramid which will serve as their tomb.

The London player sweats profusely, breathing heavily, eyes watering, as the opponent calmly and gracefully rolls up the wall of pawns, sealing the fate of the London player. Buried beneath the very same passive structure that swore to keep them safe from harm... how poetic...

🤣 You're a funny one. Just because I disagree with your bs and you can't defend it you just say "oh well there must be something wrong with you".

In conclusion, i believe there are many types of london players, which some types being more calm than others

• The boring london player (most common): they learn a simple developing system where there are no complications and hopes that they can punish any mistakes black makes for a easy win
• The challenging londer player (not very common below 1700): They will play the most challenging,best setups against the many setups black has (i.e KID or a Semi Slav setup) and they typically play jobava style london
• The advanced boring player (very common at a more advanced level): They are the same as the 1st, but they learn all of blacks challenging setups and their weaknesses, and try to exploit them. They use a strategy of making you bored by playing the most boring way possible and play in a way where they hope you fall asleep and blunder  then they punish it and go for the kill
• The person that uses it for a draw (common all around, you see them more as you get stronger) these people will use the boring london and play super-solid, trade things down into a equal endgame and draw to get their  +1 from drawing.

In the QGD Black equalises as well with correct play, as White you need to vary your sublines a bit and try to drag the opponent to unfamiliar territory where the hope is the they will make mistakes, not because some line gives a theoretical advantage but because they won't know the positions as well.

There's nothing wrong with having the London in the arsenal and doing the exact same strategy.

Not being responsive to what the opponent plays is bad in the QGD as well, if White eg plays for Nf3 and the minority attack no matter where Black puts their pieces and pawns, White will be in trouble. There are exceptions to this though in the case of specialists eg GM Arkell is so good in the minority attack that he may as well try it where others won't.

In the QGD too, beginners typically play a single plan no matter what Black plays, as learning all the plans and model games for them takes some time, typically a couple of years.

Boredom is not an assessment of a position, it's a state of mind, and it's not a helpful starting point for playing equal positions.

If anything, this thread is tempting me to study the White side of London in the summer.

White has way better chances of playing for the win in the QGD. Just saying.

There is too much focus on what opening is and if positions evaluate as equal. I'd be much more worried if I faced someone who knows small subtleties in an opening, and has played hundreds of endgames from that opening, than whether the position after the last book move is equal.

True, I know this theory is a lot to process but one day you might get it. #prayfortrashtalker