Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

Watch the video I posted at the beginning.

Example of why the london cant be played

It is because most people spend an overproportionate amount of time studying openings, and they neglect the middle game and the endgame. Now, the London is an opening you cannot beat with opening preparation, you have to outplay your opponent in the later stages of the game in rather quiet positions. Most amateur players don't have the skills and the patience to do that, so they practically beat themselves, and instead of admitting their weaknesses, they put the blame on the opening choice and attitude of their opponent. 

I have had my fair share in this problem, as I have lost plenty of games with Black in the Exchange French, the Exchange KID, the English, etc. Needless to say, I hated them all. But this kind of game is part of chess - you have to learn how to cope with such openings, and then the hatred disappears. 

You can't exactly separate chess into parts like this in the sense of openings, middlegames and endgames.

Openings lead into middlegames and middlegames lead into endgames. They are bonded together. The fight begins in the opening. If opponent makes a mistake in the opening then you punish it. If opponent concedes the centre then you take it. The London player is not taught to think like this. They are just taught to play the same moves and try to outplay their opponent from a totally equal position, instead of fighting and punishing the opponent to try to get a better position. It teaches bad habits.

When it comes to playing against the London, none of us have any problem with that as you can see from earlier posts. Like I said, it's just a petty argument to say "you don't like it because you lose against it!" well what if you're wrong about that?

I can understand the sentiment of getting used to playing against it. In the sense of what's on the board is on the board so now you just play against it for the win and learn to play better if you struggle.

It's just a shame that they will not explore the game outside of 1 single structure and setup.

Hikaru played it a few times but he's not a "London player". Have you ever taken the time to look at any of Hikaru's serious tournament games instead of just one of his online videos about the London or his disrespect speedruns?

Very much right. If somebody like carlsen was seen playing the london I think his opponent would look at him with a side eye.

It's just this is the issue. Of course we should learn how to adapt to play against the London but the London player will never adapt to play other openings.

They seek the same for black "Is there a system opening like the London for black? Is there something easy to play with black?" They basically just want an opening where they play the same moves every single game to get an equal position.

Carlsen plays whatever he wants. There was a game I saw where he played Scholar's Mate and lost. Actually hilarious.

The original question was not whether the London is a good or bad opening. If you say it is a bad choice for improving players, I agree. The question was why it is hated, and I responded to that. It is hated mostly by Black players who have poor results against it.

True, one cannot exactly separate opening, middle game, and endgame in chess - but you can still have separate training for those areas, and you should realize if you are weak in them. As a coach, I know plenty of club players who go on self-destruction mode immediately if they have to play a quiet middlegame or endgame. The London is one of the openings that can bring out that kind of weakness. 

chess is a game about attacking the opponent and winning, chess is not supposed to be some job that you hate and say ¨sigh... looks like i gotta play another london¨

but like it isn't half the time

you can't just say "i don't feel like playing slower and quieter games", because you often aren't going to be able to force that.

as white you can, as black its much harder

This can be a reason for some people but it's not the only reason. Like if someone plays Scholar's Mate against you, of course you can refute it but it's still like "really dude?". They are not playing a serious opening or getting into really interesting lines. Or like people hate the Englund. Of course it's a garbage opening which can be refuted but it's not as exciting or interesting as playing a Nimzo or King's Indian.

I do agree with you that if anyone is struggling against it then they just need to learn how to play against it properly. There is no point complaining about it at the board. But we can still make points as to why there are things wrong with it. Like you said it's a bad choice for improving players.

I think these things are all relevent "Why do people hate/dislike the London?" "What's bad about the London?". It's all part of the conversation.

The London is fine; even the Bongcloud is fine; it all depends on the player.

What's so funny about this thread is that you never hear really good players talking this way! Lines like "I play the Bg5 Najdorf--I'm a real man!" or "London players are all cringing cowards" are never heard. The top players play chess. They don't gossip about openings like a bunch of 12-year old girls arguing about their favorite K-Pop stars

The IM Toth video at the first page is interesting. It is an *argumented* take, not against the London itself but rather against its repeated usage by beginners, saying it would hinder their future development as players.

It is a very different thing than what is inside the thread. Let's look at it another way. Why the heck would you complain against an OPPONENT under the pretense he allegedly plays BAD MOVES against you, especially online (which means you don't even know that person and that he'll vanish from your life in about 10 minutes at most)?:
Answer:if you could deal with that player easily you wouldn't notice, you wouldn't even care at all. The only reason is that is because you cannot defend against the so-called bad moves. And that's all!!

you literally play the symmetrical italian you can´t be talking

No-one ever said that they were a real man because of the openings they play. I personally never said anyone was a wimp just because they played the London.

The issue is when someone says there's no way they could ever play those openings because it's way too sharp and aggressive for them. They're holding themselves back. The fact that you are not willing to step outside your comfort zone and adapt is a hinderance to your own development as a chess player.

This is how London players are often taught to think. Especially in the "Levy Rozman school of chess". "There's no way you could play that opening, it's too sharp for a beginner like you." "There's no way you could play such an aggressive opening, just play simple and safe." Playing chess with bumper pads on is no way to improve.

Even if someone does play the London, they should really be advised to also pick up either d4-c4 or e4. Even Eric Rosen also plays e4.

I appreciate that. Respect to you too for differentiating instead of saying "ALL ___"

Ok, this point I will really explain to you. You want to be able to play against opponents who challenges you so that it will actually be an interesting game. When you just smash a bunch of -300 players, that isn't interesting or satisfying. You want an opponent who plays good moves and plays well against you so that it will actually be an interesting game. If you win, it will actually be satisfying. If you lose, then you will actually learn something.

Nothing is satisfying about playing against amateurs who repetitively play the London and know nothing else. They refuse to adapt. They refuse to try new things. They refuse to learn anything about the game of chess outside the London. It's not interesting.