Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

Maybe.

Edit: nvm, realised you were replying to someone else. Still leaving my response below as-it-was

No I'm not saying he's worse because for starters I don't know the whole London, just the line I play with Black.

I'm aware of one equalising line and I'd expect others to exist, so I'd expect it to lead to equality with correct play from black, like in the QGD, but not worse.

What I'm saying is that given an equal position the side that knows it best will play it better. Eg to know what to trade you need knowledge of the endgames in that structure, if the White player has played 100 OTB games and who knows how many online ones , has analysed those games, their pattern knowledge on the position will be much better than their opponent's, little subtleties will likely only be noticed by the player who has experience in the position and has studied it.

In a sense what I'm saying is that two equal players won't play equally well in an equal position if their accumulated knowledge specifically for that tabiya is different. This is measurable, e.g. it has been measured that play between positions in a master's repertoire vs ones outside a master's repertoire has a quality gap of about 300(? Don't recall the exact number) rating points. 300 rating points are typically sufficient to win from an equal position, provided it's not a dead draw.

So yes experience that's been built matters for the outcome.

The argument is basically saying that someone could have an advantage against you in the London if they know the endgame better or heavily revised the opening.

This is basically just saying "if someone is better at chess than you then they will beat you". That is very true. If someone is better at chess than you then they will probably beat you. Good point. However, this is not a good defence of the London as it's nothing to do with the London in particular.

The queen's gambit does provide better winning chances for white and there are good, technical reasons for this. White's setup is far more active and doesn't allow any of these queenside tricks that I've previously shown.

We can compare the setups.

The former is safe but not challenging. White isn't doing anything in particular. Let's say, to give it the benefit of the doubt, the f4 bishop and f3 knight control e5 and c3 maintains the d4 pawn.

The latter is far more active. White has a strong agenda in the centre. The c4 pawn and c3 knight pressure d5. The bishop pressures the knight, the defender of d5. If black ever takes on c4 then white can play e4.

These ideas are much better to seize the advantage and play for a win.

Driving someone out of their preparation and into ours can be very effective.

As one example in the 1972 match, the Najdorf, Fischer's specialty but something Spassky was well prepared for, gave Fischer losses and draws, no wins. The Alekhine, for which Spassky was not so well prepared, gave Fischer a win and a draw and the draw was made when Fischer was taking very little risk because he didn't need to.

The results from the openings were not in line with their theoretical evaluation, the Najdorf has a better standing than the Alekhine, Fischer knew that and created his opening strategy accordingly.

outside WCC class of players ( well below it actually ), of course we don't do as much preparation for a specific opponent in a tournament, but the principle still stands, there are points to be reaped by being well familiar with positions our opponent isn't if we can drive them there, provided the positions are sound.

So against an opponent who is well prepared for the QGD not only in terms of prepared lines but also in terms of accumulated experience, the London could well be a nice opening preparation strategy to score a point.

Kamsky plays it consistently, not as a one-off as Miles's 1. ..a6, and he's no fool, he was world #3-#4 in the past, he's definitely well informed on choices and must be seeing rich play in the London.

Another example from the same match, and in this case, an unsound opening, the Bb5 in the Tartakower, a game Fischer won in great fashion was simply downright losing. Spassky had forgotten the refutation Geller had shown him, as he discarded the possibility of playing a QGD as Black against Fischer.

This was a world championship match game, not an online Blitz game, the surprise factor won even over the soundness factor.

Of course we should only play sound lines but the equality of the (sound) London positions is really overstated in this thread.

What are you even talking about ssctk? This thread is about the London System and you're going into this long-essay on why opening preparation is a good idea with annotated games of world championship games and then with a sentence at the end mentioning the London. Let's keep it on topic next time.

please keep your advise for yourself.

This is what I mean. The argument is that, even though the London is not that good, it's good because the opponent is not prepared for it.

The London is a fairly common opening now so we all know what it is. Many of us have seen it played and know specific lines.

The argument doesn't defend the London, it only talks about opening preparation.

Equal positions is not a reason to deem an opening "not good".

No opening guarantees an advantage, when it does promise one equalising lines are found later and anyhow even at WC matches theoretical advantages is not what determines the opening choices.

Knowing lines is also different to accumulating experience in these lines.

A previous claim was that this London line is winning by force for white.

Didn't you know that white wins by force here? They just play 7. dxc5 Qxb2 8. Nd4 Bg6 9. Bb5 Rc8 and black is dead lost! Take that London doubters!

The position is drawn but black appears to have good chances here.

These are the amateur game results.

I found the position after 8. Nd4 had been played 34 times in the master's database.

• Ne4, 20 times: all draws.
• e5, 8 times: all draws.
• Bg6, 3 times: 2 white wins, 1 black win.
• Bg4, 2 times: 1 draw, 1 black win
• Bd7, 1 draw

Nowhere did I claim London was winning for White, actually it's rare that I read lines from the forum.

Also, whether the London is good to play is completely independent of whether someone in this discussion misevaluated a line.

It is if white equalises from an advantageous position with no counterplay. Case in point, 4 Knights Italian:

Of course, no opening guarantees an advantage. All sound openings are playable for both sides. However, some openings provide way greater chances based on the moves made. The moves that are made in the opening are not totally meaningless.

In this case, even though Nc3-Bc4 is equal. Bc4-d3 first is better.

4 knights italian is barely playable, the London is playable, even by a player of Kamsky's caliber.

There are lots of good options which are deemed equal, the KIA vs e6 Sicilians or the French for example, it's equal but it's a good choice, one could write a long list here. Just because it's evaluated as equal it doesn't mean it's meaningless to play it.

I wasn't talking about the engine evaluation. I was talking about the results of games between human players.

It's true, there are some positions which the engine evaluates as equal but are very imbalanced and unlikely to draw. The difference with the London is that it is not very imbalanced and black has an easy path to equality.

I think most people are misunderstanding why serious coaches and content creators dislike the London.

It is not because it is light on theory or because it is not dynamic enough. It is because it instills bad habits in new, improving players. Many high-level people play London and it is a very viable opening, but I believe the reason people like Danya disapprove of it is primarily due to lower rated players.

Two ideas that I see or foresee :

a : A bad understanding of chess where 1) d4 d5 2) Bf4 is opening called equal so it would be boring to play a position that would be mathematically a draw. 

In chess according to me it is subjective to say that a position is advantageous, disadvantageous or equal because objectively a position is a winner, a loser or a draw but start to study the endgames and see that even the super calculators do not manage in many cases to calculate everything to establish in a radical way that the position is a winner, loser or draw. Then it's clownish to believe that after 1) d4 d5 2) Bf4 a human as arrogant as he is could know that the position would be a mathematical a draw being far from being able to match performances of positions calculation like 3 millions of positions per second things that a strong bot can do without allowing him to know if the position would be mathematically a draw.

b : It is a false White opening because it is a Black opening with a reversed color and one more move.

Indeed it is like for 1) c4 e5, it is a Sicilian Defense with reversed color and a move more.  This opening even if played by a lot of GMI with some success can't really be a main line and I think is less ambitious than 1) e4 and 1) d4 which are the real White openings. 

The Black player I think can do without studying 1) c4, 1) f4, 1) b3, 1) Nc3, 1) a3 etc. but cannot really do without studying 1) e4 and 1) d4 ( with idea x) c4) so if the White players start to play too often Black openings with reversed colors and a move more, it can be annoying for Black players ("who will tend not to know anything about these openings") and if they lose too often, hate can kick in.

The London is a sound and playable opening. I'm not saying that it isn't. The point is that it's not very ambitious and doesn't give white such good winning chances compared to the Queen's Gambit or Ruy Lopez.

It doesn't give white as good winning chances in practice, not based on what the engine says but what is shown in the human score.

Kamsky is a very good player.

Every time people say this "you only look at stockfish and don't understand anything!". Not true. I'm looking at the results.

We also have to consider the purpose of the moves.

I have given my opinion that d4-c4-Nc3-Bg5 is far more ambitious and has far greater purpose behind the moves than d4-Bf4-c3-Nd2. This is reflected in the results of the games at all levels.

You're making assumptions about my intentions.

Bg6 is one of the top moves in that position.

Really, there are only four moves for black there: Bg6, e5, Bg4, and Ne4. A prepared London player (who likes 7. dxc5) will have responses to all 4 of these moves. It'll all be part of their repertoire.

See: Kamsky (this is how I'm familiar with these lines - from studying his games). The very first position I showed is from Kamsky (GM) vs. Gutierrez (IM):

Here we have an example where an International Master had the Black pieces against the London - and, surprisingly: they didn't have a fun time ...

Evidence that, even for an International Master, the London can pose serious problems.

Yet we have untitled amateurs on these forums acting as if the London is practically refuted ...

If you want to look at e5 instead of Bg6, here we go:

Two GMs duking it out in the World Open. Both players take turns parrying and prodding. The game ended in a draw.

My point is that the London player isn't always placid, nor does one need to always play it by rote. In the hands of an experienced player, it's an entirely valid opening choice, with more dynamic choices than some players realize.

--

Personally, I like to play 1.Nf3, then transpose into either: the Nimzo-Larsen, the Queen's Gambit, the Colle, or the London - depending on the defensive structure Black chooses.

I enjoy playing the London against early KID structures, as it creates a classical structure (from white) against a hypermodern structure (from Black). A fun clash of styles.

When black plays a more classical structure (pawn to d5, for example), I don't play the London, and will opt for a more hypermodern structure from white, in response ... (English, Nimzo-Larsen, or perhaps KIA) ... for similar reasons.