Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

Yeah those 1800 beginners, you tell them!

Blah, blah, blah

Lol, I didn't look at the rating. Qb3 still definitely works though. And Qb6 against the London. I think we all know this stuff:

Which works out exceptionally well for black. I know there are better ways of playing for white but they still often run into this trouble with the weakened queenside. It's the closest thing to a London refutation.

No, Reversed London is a structure like this.

This is all true except at a reasonably high level, say 2500+ OTB, not many people are going 5. Nf3 in the line shown in post #47. I think everyone will play Nd2. Black's fine, but also white's fine, it's a chess position, no refutation of anything. There are many possible moves.

Yeah, c5 and Qb6 in a London essentially equalizes immediately, and if White plays passively or doesn't react well to the threat, Black is often better or much better. I did a lot of analysis for that one thread I mentioned earlier, and there are only one or two lines in which White conserves their advantage. I don't think the London is a complete repertoire unless White also knows the intricacies of the Jobava London as well.

I might just be playing the London System less accurately than is possible, but my usual move order is 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Bf4, the old London move order. I prefer the move order because it gives me more time to react to what Black does. If they play 1... d5 2... c5 I can transpose into a Bishop Attack Pseudotarrasch or Two Knights Tarrasch, if they play Spielmann-Indian I can transpose to the Declined Benko, if they play g6 I can transpose to a KID, but if they play d5 Nf6 I can just play a normal London and my preferred line against Qb6 involves an early Nf3, so I'm okay with blocking the d1-h5 diagonal that early in the game.
What do you think of the Old London move order these days?

i think london is good for under 1000

I played vs it otb once. I got a smug punk too...but over the game, I saw a different side of him.

Ultimately I was impressed...I chased his king all over..and he put his best foot forward.

In blitz, yeah, its all pathetic. But anytime you are moving up quickly the ratings ladder OTB, who cares? . He was 17 or some such...and 2050 USCF when I played. And 6 months later he was 2150, playing the London vs IMs.

also btw how do you post analysis board thing?

https://support.chess.com/article/316-how-do-i-put-a-game-or-puzzle-in-a-forum-post

If you have the PGN of the game you can enter it into an analysis board.  Right click on the moves and add comments right there in the PGN.  Then you can copy all that and share it with your comments added as well.  That is preferred by most players.  Play around with it, its not that hard to figure out.

Unless you are a London player then it might be difficult to imagine.

4. e3 / 5. c4 is unclear. I'd prefer 4. c4

Definitely playable if you do something like 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Nc6 5. Nbd2 Qb6 6. dxc5

In my Chess club, we have forbidden the London System, the King's Indian Attack, and quite a few unsound gambits. There may be a legal challenge to this.

This thread has been more about educating London players ironically…

Makes one feel sorry for Gata Kamsky, who apparently must stuck in that rating range.

That’s actually my exact line, and I believe I’ve actually improved on theory deeper in this line.
The traditional line follows 6... Qxb2 7. Rb1 Qc3 8. Bb5 e6 9. 0-0 Be7 10. Ne5 Qxc5 11. c4 0-0 and Black has equalized and might be better, but my analysis shows that 10. Ne5 is a less accurate move than 10. e4, and after 10. e4 0-0 11. e5 Nd7 12. Nb3 Qb4 13. Nfd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 Qxc5 15. Re1 a6 16. Bd3 g6 17. Nb3 White retains a small advantage. Realizing that's a long line so I'll put a board here.