Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

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.

Kamsky has a 2-volume set with deeply annotated games, is that your source for his games? are there lots of London games there?

I was thinking of ordering them in hopes of finding his views on the London there. This thread got me interested in the White side of the London, if reactions to it are that emotional, it's probably worth looking into it 😁

I haven't read that set of his, but I imagine it's highly instructive.

My knowledge of Kamsky's games comes mainly from looking at his database games, and using the engine to explore the positions (and to try out alternate moves) when I need help understanding his ideas.

I believe the London can be an excellent addition to your repertoire, if you're interested in it. Though, like you said, others on this thread would probably disagree quite strongly.

He's spent 10 pages per game ( at least that's what reviews say ). As he's annotating his own games, I'm hoping for nuggets of wisdom ( "X is also good", "against Y I played that and made me re-evaluate" etc ), I find these comments by SGMs who play an opening very valuable when adding to a repertoire, as it steers the repertoire into the right direction.

A repertoire book on the other hand may not propose lines due to space considerations, readability by all rating ranges etc, fear of criticism in reviews etc.

But I don't know how many London games are there...

Sounds very in-depth. I don't have any additional information on the set, sorry.

But it'd be hard to find any players more knowledgeable about the London than Kamsky himself ...

Yeah somehow I'll take more seriously Kamsky's view, which he's willing to put to the test OTB against SGMs, instead of the views that it's not a good opening in this thread 😁

If someone wants to learn it and play it, whether they enjoy it or they're just being a contrarian, that's their own choice and path.

I learn about the London as well. It's sound and playable, it's a Semi-Slav up a tempo, but it's certainly not the best. The Semi-Slav is a solid black defence played in response to white's active opening, the Queen's Gambit.

The major flaw of the London is that it weakens the queenside which is exploited in many lines. If we try to play a reverse London with black then it just isn't playable because of Qb3.

The same with many lines in the London except white is managing to cling on from having the extra tempo.

White has far more ambitious and active choices whether it's the Ruy Lopez, the Queen's Gambit, one of an array of many beautiful white choices against each of the Indian Defences, Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann and so on.

In the London people are basically just playing like this

Instead playing in more ambitious and interesting ways and adapting the best setup for the opponent's defence

I fully agree with this argument. It is actually impossible to learn anything about how to play the London System well by playing the London System against players below 1700. I've probably played 200-300 games in the London System as White (mostly rapid, some blitz).
I saw c5 played less than 30 times, and Qb6 was played against me ONCE, less than ten people tried a KID-style approach, and in approximately 40% of the games, Black would play d5 e6 Bd6 Bxg3, allowing me to play hxg3 and double my rooks on the h-file. Along with the queen-LSB battery, that was essentially always enough to checkmate.

If we remove opening choices that lose by force, then everything else is just a matter of choice and preference. The London is just one choice of many.

A lot of chess openings come down to the mood of the players at the moment, especially at higher levels. Watch Nakamura play, for example. Or Carlsen. You'll notice they often pause in the first few moves, pondering.

They aren't thinking, "What's the single best setup, here?"

No, they're usually thinking: "Hmm.. What do I feel like playing this time?"

They switch and change different approaches, from tournament to tournament, from game to game. Because there are so many viable choices to choose from.

Like putting on a different colored shirt, or wearing a different hat.

Now we might argue that, "London players always play the same setup! That's the whole problem!" But this applies to so many other players, as well.

If I had a nickel for all the Queen's Gambit players who always play the same d4, c4, Nf3, Nc3, Bg5, e3, Bd3/Be2, 0-0, Qc2/Rc1 setups ...

Or a dime for all the King's Indian players who always play the same nf6, g6, Bg7, d6, 0-0, Nc6/Nbd7, Re8/Qe8 setups ...

Or ...

It's not exactly just what they "feel" like playing - they are also considering their own knowledge and they are also considering the opponent's knowledge. If the opponent is always playing the isolated queen pawn structure then that mightn't be the best structure to allow them to get - or to a lesser extent to play against them, because they'll be expert in that. If they're known for great tactics and just won a blitz tournament recently, maybe play a slower game. Though it is what they feel like playing to some extent that's not all of it.

It's funny how there'll be smirks and rolling eyes at a 1600 taking time on move 5 of the KID to think about his options but if a GM does it it's some deep and extraordinary in-depth analytical mental gymnastics he's doing.

Uhohspaghettio1,your last paragraph is spot-on, applying not only to chess but to just about every human endeavor. For a certain type of person, the legitimacy of a venture or idea rests not with the thing, itself, but the "credentials" of the individual involved .Some of the hostile ideas expressed by posters on this thread  concerning The London are valid, but the majority is just noxious bigotry; merely counting the posts that are objective vs those that contain prejudicial statements shows this thread often strays from an impartial discussion into a  toxic stew. Don't look for anything positive or useful from such disingenuous " contributors."

The Queen's Gambit is incredibly diverse and has a much stronger agenda in the centre with the c4-Nc3-Bg5 model. Bg5 is main line QGD. You still have to adapt to various different defences such as Slav, Tarrasch, Nimzo, Grünfeld, Benoni. Also white has a wide array of different setups to choose from depending on the defence leading to totally different structures.

All of these openings can be considered the Queen's Gambit:

The King's Indian can't be compared to the London at all. It's extremely flexible and much more aggressive. White can play in several different ways, each with their own array of responses by black. Black can play with e5-f5, c5-e6 Benoni, c5-b5 Benko, Nc6-a6 Panno, a5-Na6 and so on. The structure has a lot of diversity.

The London is a very rigid and safe structure designed so that one doesn't have to adapt to any of these different defences. They can just play the same moves and not die but not have a particular advantage either.

Diversity and repertoire depends on the player.

The QG structure can (and often is) systemized.

Here's such a system in action:

And so on ... I've encountered many players, over the years, who handle the opening this way - treating it as a rote system - the same kind of play that London players are often accused of.

The same can be said of the KID. I have an OTB opponent who plays this every game:

He plays this setup perpetually, against all moves, against all openings. The only time he may vary is if an unexpected tactical threat or opportunity arises.

With the London, the same is true: it depends on the player. White can handle it as a rote system, or white can handle it in a more diverse way.

Consider this typical starting point:

The popular choice here would be c3, for example. Establishing the pawn triangle that we all love (or hate).

But what about dxc5, instead?

Now we've got a commital move on the board that has changed the "systematic" nature of the London. "What exactly is White doing?" Black might say. "Doesn't he know about the pawn triangle formation?"

Well, perhaps the London doesn't have to be played the same way, all time.

The players went on to fight a long, complex battle ... with that single pawn move changing the whole nature, and trajectory, of the game.

Or how about this?

Gone is the complacent, passive London stereotype. White wants a fight, and is announcing it quickly.

How about this?

We've got both players ready to brawl.

The London doesn't have to be played the same way, every time ...

People aren't playing the Queen's Gambit vs King's Indian very often like you claim. Contrary to what you've shown, this is the most common King's Indian line in the amateur database:

This is following the most common recorded moves. I feel that you saying that people play the King's Indian like a QGD is disingenuous as that isn't very common.

It's the same with a lot of the other lines. The most common lines are the Classical Qc2 Nimzo, the Exchange Grünfeld, Four Pawns Attack Benoni.

The Queen's Gambit and d4-c4 isn't a system opening. The London is a system opening. When you look at all these different defences by black, most people are playing the London the exact same way.

Against the King's Indian, Queen's Indian, Grünfeld, Main Line, it's most commonly played this way. I'm looking at what you're saying and I can see that a lot of people are playing the Semi-Slav and Dutch like a QGD but a lot of the lines you showed for the QGD "system" are not very common.

The London System lines are the most common. Sure, it's true that you can play the London in some other ways like the Jobava London but even in that case, it blocks the c pawn and disallows fluidity of the structure.

Playing with c4-Nc3 is just better, more active, more ambitious. There is so much more diversity within d4-c4 and it's way more flexible. White builds a side centre, preparing to develop the knight behind the pawn and waits to develop the DSB which could go to g5, f4 or e3 depending on what's considered best for the variation.

The London is far too rigid, committal and unambitious.

I'm not saying all London games are boring or the London is bad. I can understand what you're saying that when there are 2 talented players going up against each other then it can still be an interesting game and that the London can be adapted to different variations. I watch Eric Rosen play it.

(Even then, it still gets boring because he plays it in like 50% of games.)

From a perspective of principles though d4-c4 is more active, more flexible, more diverse and more interesting.

I agree that the Queen's Gambit allows more room for variety. As far as chess openings go, the Queen's Gambit is as top-tier as you can get.

Though I don't think this should be held against the London - they're different openings, and of course they're going to have different strategies, as a result.

Is the London more rigid? I'll agree with you there. The most common structure, as you said, is very repetitive. Though this can be a positive thing, if consistency is what a player is seeking. Or it can be a negative thing - especially if it prevents a player from learning how to handle other structures.

I have no qualms with you, nor with the many players who despise the London. Many of the points you've made (and the points others have made, as well) are legitimate. The London has both beneftis and shortcomings.

Though, I don't believe it's as deserving of infamy as many make it out to be. And this is why I tend to defend it in threads, whenever I see it criticized.

Much of my stance comes from the fact that I play the London, from time to time, as part of a larger repertoire that includes other openings. So, from my perspective, it's a perfectly viable tool - like having a screwdriver in a kit. I don't always want to use a screwdriver, but I like knowing how to use it, when the need arises.

I believe that most of the disdain shown toward the London (and its players) comes from a disdain toward system openings in general. The London has the misfortune of being so commonly played and promoted, these days, that it has become the posterchild for "systematic, lazy chess".

But there are other systems that I believe could be equally questioned. The Stonewall Attack, for example. I don't run into many Stonewall players, but when I do, they almost invariably play it on autopilot.

The KIA is another that can be virtually premoved.

The London can be abused in the same way - and when it's used as a replacement for thinking, then I tend to agree with the critics. But as an independent opening itself, I think it's perfectly valid.

Well... @IronSteam1 has more of a point here than you do. To play the Queen's Gambit correctly, you do have to adapt to the various Black responses, and to play the KID correctly you do have to adapt to the various Black responses, but the same is also true of the London. To play the London correctly you have to adapt to the various Black responses, ranging from the good (d5 c5 Nf6 Nc6 Qb6, Nf6 g6 d6 Bg7 Nc6 0-0 Re7, Nf6 c5 cxd4 Qb6) to the mediocre (d5 c5 Bf5 Nf6 e6 Nh5, Nf6 c6 Qb6) to the bad (d5 e6 Bd6 Bxg3, d5 e6 c6 Nf6 Nbd7). I'd recommend every London player to learn the Rapport-Jobava System as well as the London system, as they compliment each other incredibly well if White wants to learn an alternative 1. d4 repertoire.
If they don't adapt, they aren't playing the opening to its full extent, and that's fine, (and also extremely common unfortunately). Let them stunt their development and learn how to crush it as fast as possible.