Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

scandivanian is better

Omg, I never said they can't go for a quiet line. This is the strawman argument. You're not arguing with me. You are making up an argument. This is what you're doing:

"You said everyone has to play sharp lines all the time!"

NO I DID NOT. Listen to yourself. I used the Bayonet Attack as an example of a line which is interesting. Of course there are other good lines against the King's Indian. The Averbakh, the Samisch, the Fianchetto, etc.

The point is that depending on the London as a system will hinder someone's development as they are not learning a variety in the game.

Even if someone wants to play quiet and positionally, there are still active ways of doing that. If you totally allow your opponent a free hand in the centre and don't challenge them then they will just roll over you.

The same works both ways. You can't play quiet and positionally all the time. There are times when the position demands you to strike and punish the opponent. There are times when a sacrifice is objectively the best move.

I know you don't like the kind of chess that I like. That's on you. All I was saying was that there are flaws with the London and players would greatly benefit from trying something which isn't the London.

The London gets way more hate than deserved. I played the London as my main opening for years and was about as successful with it as I am with 1.e4 (win rate 52%, loss rate 41% only including chess.com).

People say the London is boring and only for really lazy people that want to avoid learning opening theory. That might be why some people play it, but definitely not everyone. I started playing the London because I've had teachers suggest it to me. This is including two titled players, an NM and an FM. In my opinion, the London isn't boring and I have no clue where some people get the idea that it is.

It's also said that the London is drawish. From my experiences with e4 and d4, I don't have many draws with either, but I actually have more draws with e4. If you want proof you can look at my insights.

And, notice how probably the strongest player in this thread (that I saw at least, I didn't look through every page but I'm assuming he's the only titled player), @dpnorman, said that although he wouldn't suggest it to his students, he has students that play it and he doesn't tell them to switch, because it is definitely a playable opening.

Edit: just saw @GaborHorvath, another titled player. Look at that! He isn't against the London either.

A lot of people that say the London is terrible because it's really drawish and boring are probably just mad that they lose to it.

A great high level game in the London, which was actually rather sharp, despite the perceptions on this thread.

GaborHorvath:

"If you say it is a bad choice for improving players, I agree."

This was one of my major points.

Also not true that people lose to it and that's why they don't like it. Tell yourself that if it helps you cope. It is a very cliche, petty argument though.

Oh, I missed his 2nd message. My message was about his first comment.

Not everyone says it because they lose to it. But I believe that is what some people do.

because it allows even very weak players to last way longer than they should agaisnt much stronger opposition. 

Sure, of course it's a reason for some people. But it's not the only reason, there are plenty of other arguments against the London.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the London is a bad opening per se. Of course people do well with it at lower levels for a long time as their opponents won't know how to challenge it and won't know a decent piece layout themselves.

The issue is that playing in this system fashion is not a good habit to learn the game. Also, it is an opening where black very easily equalises. Of course, it's still a game from there but it's suboptimal to more ambitious strategies.

Man this thread is getting weird now XD

Lol. It's just got long enough that people don't read the previous comments to understand what's going on and just make up random arguments out of nowhere so everyone has to repeat themselves.

Oh well. Nothing learned, nothing gained, apparently.

I just think hate is a strong word and unwarranted towards London players. I keep in mind that I have playing partners who are London players and outside of chess, they are good people and even smart with PhDs.

With regards to openings to an extent, a repertoire; there’s always a rebuttal that some people will dislike facing.

I actually never said I hate the London and I also said I have no problem with people who play the London. It's not like some weird discrimination thing, lol. One of my favourite streamers is Eric Rosen who plays the London because he's a cool person.

It's the title which used the word hate and I took that im the broader sense of "Why do people hate the London?/What's wrong with the London?"

you literally have  3x more games with d4

I already knew that. What is your point?

Just wondering, what do you think the rating is where you stop being at the "lower levels?"

The sample size is imbalanced so it's not an accurate portrayal.

Also draws are far less common at lower levels. It's like 95% not draws in any opening.

Over 2000 but over 2500 gives the most accurate picture of openings as it will be the most accurate play.