Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

Only the british would do that

I play the London occasionally. it is a solid choice. I criticize those who recommend it to beginners because it promotes illusions instead of the sort of skill development one needs to advance. You don’t get better at chess trying to avoid sharp tactical play.

You know what else both Carlsen and Nakamura have played? The Bongcloud. Carlsen and Nakamura have played stuff like 1. a3 g5. They just play anything because they don't care. When it comes to serious matches, they play something else way more. Carlsen and Nakamura have played way more Ruy Lopez and Open Sicilian in serious games than London.

At the top level, the London is almost always a draw. The players play like 30 decent moves and it fizzles out into a drawn endgame. Because it's so simple and unambitious, there are virtually no game changing complications or chances to play for a win.

Black just plays the Reversed Queen's Gambit setup and totally equalises. Normally, it should be white who challenges the centre with c4 and black who defends. In the London, white neglects challenging the centre and plays defence, allowing black to pressure the centre with c5. It does just equalise for black.

I would think that General George McClellan was the type of person that played the London.

However Stonewall Jackson was King's Gambit all the way.

I don't necessarily think the London is the most critical opening white can play, but I definitely do think you guys are making things out to be a lot simpler than they are. I especially disagree with the second paragraph of post number 25.

White even has some very sharp ideas. Like 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5 3. e4 is kinda fun. Or 2...Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. dxc5. Yeah it's equal, but I highly doubt anyone in this thread would be able to equalize there, because you need to know a lot of moves and they're very complicated.

Spice up your life ;-)

You are wrong and just making a non-argument. "You just hate the London because you're mean, bad people!" is basically what you're saying.

The reason people dislike the opening is because it's avoiding stuff like the King's Indian, Benoni and Grünfeld where white grabs the full centre and plays aggressively. It avoids the Nimzo and Queen's Indian where white challenges black's control of the light squares.

There are such a wide variety of openings and ways of playing far more aggressively and ambitiously for white but instead white opts for this meek pyramid of pawns.

In the King's Indian white establishes a Goliath of a centre and plays for the win.

Like in the Bayonet Attack. It's so much more aggressive and exciting. The London is just avoiding some of the best parts of chess and it's a shame.

There are actual reasons people dislike it. It's not just because everyone is mean and wants to feel superior. That's just copium.

GothamChess is trash content lol.

@FrogboyWarpz, I fully agree with you. Most of the hate it gets comes from the 600-1300 casual crowd who have no clue how to attack such a solid, passive structure. There was a fantastic thread a few months ago, https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/the-best-equalizing-move-orders-against-the-london-system, which explained how best to meet the London structure, but unfortunately it didn't gain a lot of traction. If you don't want to read the full thread, I can link the board below.

Please share your secrets.

Hate is a strong word.

I don’t mind the London at all nowadays, I get a stress free set-up and comfortable game. In fact, I switch it up between a few side lines to keep myself interested and engaged where I am more familiar than the London player.

Please show us some examples of how a player with your modest rating destroys the London in "the most beautiful way." Even GMs could probably learn something!

I understand that's what you'd "expect," but I don't know why you're so eager to cut off your analysis as soon as possible given that people much stronger than either of us will ever be have analyzed these positions extremely deeply, and have played them for wins with both sides in OTB LTC.

Chess is much more complicated than you often make it out to be.

For instance, 4...e6 5. b4 a5 6. c3 and now what would you play? Would you take on b4 and play b6?

Nobody would play 4. Ne2 in that line, not sure where you got that from; the idea was to create a reversed Albin with a bishop already on f4. Strong players would recognize this, and then there's the usual g6/a6 approaches (like g3 or a3 vs Albin) a tempo down. It's possible black is better, but white's results haven't been bad in the 3...dxe4 lines at all. The point is there don't need to be boring draws, and easy equality only comes to those who work.

Also 3...Nc6!? is a thing with rough equality

Is this a Reversed London?

I literally just finished the game…

https://www.chess.com/game/live/73155536463

as the dude who plays the kings gambit, Bg5 najorf, and most agressive french lines, i can say; the london is for whimps who dont know how to play real chess

Black shouldn't be able to get away with this because of Qb3. This is a common beginner mistake in the Slav. Developing the LSB is a focal theme of the Slav and explains a lot of the opening play. If black wants to develop the bishop in the Slav, they first have to take on c4.

Black is actually busted here.

This problem also exists in the London, another flaw of the system, but white's a tempo up so it's a bit more survivable.

Yeah those 1800 beginners, you tell them!

Blah, blah, blah