what is the London system?

Also, most of these lines do not even exist. Maybe you ought to start thinking for yourself instead of parroting irrelevant engine evaluations or dumb names from poorly created databases.

Queen's Gambit and for your information, I read a Grandmaster Repertoire Book to deal with it which I will leave a study to here in case you don't believe me. In fact, whenever I play the system recommended by Boris Avrukh, I win most of the time. Of course, you will probably be wondering what I play the Queen's Gambit so I will leave a pgn below

That should cover most of the lines and should deliver the message

These days it is no longer a particularly foolish thing to do. Having a 3400-rated player looking at the opening position afresh is not necessarily inferior to say relying on the database of master games. Sure, you could do better by using a lot of time to study many different branches but the engine evaluation will generally be quite informative.

I don't really see what possible benefit it could have other than simply for interests sake... e.g. what is stockfish's least favourite move vs. 1.e4? or stuff like that can be fun to find out.

Anyone who could let some minute difference in engine evaluation on move 1 change their preferred openings (for example to switch from 1.e4 to 1.c4 as the engine likes the latter better) is awfully misguided.

Professionals use engines all the time... using a modern database is obviously better than asking the engine.

Oh, you guys were talking about move 1.

lol.

It's too bad kids are growing up with these engines.

Engines are very good at pointing out large mistakes... use them for that, and forget about them for everything else. That's my advice.

edit

I also like to use the engine for any position I have a strong opinion about... arguing with the engine (so to speak) lets you explore things in a way that's informative... but if you're completely clueless (or if many moves are equally good) then don't bother looking at the engine's top pick.

I sometimes play the Fred (with ...Kf7) and surprisingly, I equalize very quickly because hardly anyone tries to punish it. Of course, this was an extreme case

I don't know if I agree. There's a reason some gambits are considered more viable than others. It might not be as reliable as it is later on in the game, but the computer is usually looking at the much larger picture. For example, the Steinitz Countergambit is good for black because you can break open the center quickly, and white is usually slower developing their pieces, so you get a slight advantage (+-0.00 rather than +0.42 or whatever it is).

Again, going from +.4 to 0.00 isn't great. White plays to win, black to draw, as the proverb goes, and suddenly, the game is fully and truly even.

Considering the fact that these lines do, in fact, exist, I'd suggest that you reevaluate insulting someone's independent thought. 

I know, I posted an image of 0.00 in the top 3 lines at depth 25 SF 15 NNUE. But hey, better drawn than losing by half a point, right?

So you hate on the Exchange Slav and the Exchange French, calling them boring and unambitious, but most often play the Exchange QGD? Sure, I guess

Steinitz countergambit does exist, although admittedly, calling it by that name is already a bit ameaturish since strong players just call obscure openings by their notation (2...c5 against the London for example.)

The 'Indian Game' (and all its derivatives) does not exist. It is a dumb name given by database programmers who don't know anything about chess. There are no shortage of such examples, especially in the chess.com opening explorer, which is particularly bad. 

Just ask @ThrillerFan about the Sicilian Defence: French Variation

I disagree about the Indian Game + variations. The variations keep the Indian theme (Nimzo-Indian, Bogo-Indian, KID, QID) but any time they make any serious deviation, the name changes (Trompowsky, Benoni, Gruenfeld, Catalan, et cetera). The Indian Game as a whole seems just as coherent as the 3 other top 4 most popular openings, the Queen's Gambit + variations, the Sicilian, and the Ruy Lopez. Just because the name changes more often doesn't mean it isn't a coherent opening.

I agree with that, but I was not claiming it provided deep insight, merely an indication of soundness.

For example, a small positive engine evaluation for white after 1. d4 d5 2. Bg4 c5 is very strong evidence against @Ethan_Brollier's wacky claim that this line "wins for black".

Of course, I disagree with the ridiculous idea that no-one should play a line evaluating 0.0 if the is one with evaluation 0.4 available. These are small differences and there is room for personal preference.

It isn't positive. It's equal. Yeah, my claim that it wins for black was unfounded, I was under the mistaken impression that the position was nearly -1 for some reason. That's my bad. I do have an image showing equality, however, so positive for white is also incorrect.

It's the only good Exchange Variation except maybe the Exchange Grunfeld. The Carlsbad pawn structure is very common in not only the QGD but also the Nimzo and is very dynamic and creates a few imbalances in the position for both sides. The Exchange Slav is bearable as long as they play Nc3 where I can play ...e5 transposing to the Winawer Countergambit. 

Also, the Exchange variation does not exchange with pawns on the same file. This avoids symmetrical positions.  

wow.... didn't think my one little sentence causes this whole debate

me playing london I don't just mindlessly play moves or go autopilot. and I know how to play the game. and I'm quite good at endgame

@EKAFC

If you say London is bad, then you are insulting Magnus Carlsen, because he likes to play london too.