Why are some openings considered "for beginners"?

Nope GM play any opening. although e4 or e5 are easier

You completely misconstrue my arguments. I was explaining specifically that the London was passive and bad for chess development. Not that it was terrible. I did not just say what I thought. I demonstrated it through lines.

I presented one line as an example as it's a common line. I obviously know other lines.

It doesn't matter how much you say you're better or how much you say that you think you know opening theory better if you can't prove it by providing examples and logical arguments. "The London is more aggressive than the Bayonet Attack because of this." "The Queen's Gambit is more passive than the London because of this." (Untrue of course though)

I gave lines and presented knowledge of openings based on facts. "this" is more passive because of "this". Actual lines.

All you do is disrespect and throw tantrums without presenting any lines or any knowledge and then act like you're better. It doesn't matter how much you try to disrespect me based on my chess.com rating because you don't actually know what my skill and knowledge is.

Compare this to the response of Optimissed. He was simply providing logical arguments without getting emotional or disrespectful.

All you do is get mad and talk about rating. You disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. It's unreasonable.

To break it down into simple terms. This

is more passive than this

Fact. Simple but true.

I'm curious, would you guys say the London System (I just looked up on it) is better for White or Black and why? 

It's not that simple, but overall London positions are typically very equal and drawish or slightly better for black. This is not so good as in most openings white should have a slight advantage from having moved first.

The reasons are, as given, that white is basically playing a Semi-Slav with colours reversed. Keep in mind that the Semi-Slav is a good, solid defence for black. But it's a defence for black. Not a white opening.

The extra tempo allows white to develop the bishop to f4 but it's simply not all that special. This leaves the b pawn weak which black can often exploit. In the Slav, white does this to black if they bring the bishop out too early. White is playing a rigid, defensive structure intended as a black defence rather than a dynamic, aggressive structure intended for white, such as the Queen's Gambit.

This is why black often plays c5 like a reversed QG. Now black is the one putting pressure on the centre and gaining a space advantage which is what white should've done by playing c4.

Another example:

I use this example as it's a common line even in the master's database. White is just slightly worse here.

In order for white to maintain a slight opening advantage in the London they have to walk a very thin line of theory.

Even IM Levy Rozman says this

Title: The reason why the London is GARBAGE

https://youtu.be/o3kUvUwVSD0

To be honest, I don't agree with everything he says regarding openings and theory and he can have kind of clickbaity titles. In this case, however, he demonstrates this point well with a game.

How to WIN with the London System! - Bing video

Also the London is boring. Many London players present the London as a solution to chess. That all you have to do is play the same structure every single game.

King's Indian? Forget about that.

Grünfeld? Forget about that.

Nimzo-Indian? Forget about that.

Queen's Gambit? Forget about that.

Sicilian? Forget about that.

Ruy Lopez? Forget about that.

Apparently all you have to do is play the London every single damn game. d4, Bf4, e3, c3, Nd2, Nf3. Rinse and repeat 1000+ times. The fact is that chess isn't that simple and this idea of chess is very unambitious.

This is why it's bad for the chess development of beginners. It's not learning chess. It's learning the London. It's only a tiny fragment of the universe of chess which there is to enjoy.

You just downvote every comment without listening to or addressing the explanations made. The things I said are true.

This is why I said you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

We are not talking about how you can trick beginners with tactics or blunders. We are talking about how the London compares theoretically to other white openings.

LMAO ok then, keep on being petty like that if you want to 🤣

👎☹️

Gotcha, thanks for the info, it just seems strange that an Opening system that I surmise was designed for White, alot of times Black is better that's ironic lol.  Well I was just curious is all.  I don't think anyone should think any Opening system is superior to another, well, they claim unless over 2k, one shouldn't study Openings. 

This is very true, a friend of mines on here says the London is just so so and he's pretty high rated, he cracked over 2k here, but I agree with pretty much all of this, Chess isn't so simple as to be dogmatic about any Opening as a "solution" to Chess, it's as was said, Chess is way too complicated for that.  The real Chess begins in the middle game, where the "lines" or "book moves" stop and you have to know what you're doing from there.  

Yeah exactly. It just doesn't challenge the centre in the same way as a non-system opening. It controls the centre but doesn't challenge it. The idea of the London system is that "all problems in life are a nail which can be resolved by hitting it with a hammer". In the sense that the point of playing the London is to avoid all the possible defences by black at the expense of accepting a passive position. Instead of using all the tools in the box, it's only using one. In the London, white will not likely die in the opening but is not pressing for an objective advantage. It's non-confrontational and that's why white often ends up slightly worse.

This is challenging and fighting for the centre:

c4 attacks black's centre, e6 defends

Nc3 continues to add pressure, Nf6 defends

Bg5 pins the knight.

This is fighting for the centre. In this case c3 is justified as white wants to trade the c3 pawn for black's central e5 pawn.

I also showed that Bayonet Attack line. Very aggressive, assertive, challenging play by white. A line where white often gains the initiative.

So many dynamic and beautiful positions.

Well said, and thanks for the games demonstrating the weakness of the London System.  Well you showed games that do fight for the center and you're saying the London doesn't do that all that well.  I can understand why beginners would gravitate to it but once a firmer understanding of Chess is achieved, perhaps one should move on from the London and learn something else where all "tools" as you put it are being utilized, especially since the center is so important in Chess, especially in the Opening phase of the game. 

I think it's better to avoid the London from the beginning as it's better to learn a variety. This is a better method of learning, objectively better and also more fun and interesting.

Apart from just the London, the idea of "play 1 white opening, 2 black openings" is ridiculous. This essentially comes back to the idea you said about being dogmatic about openings. If you can only depend on a very constrained repertoire then you aren't learning to adapt and look for good moves regardless of the position and are just playing on auto-pilot.

When I talk about using all the tools in the box I mean learnIng challenging responses to each of black's defences. This is also more fun as there are many variations against each defence so you can really personalise your arsenal of openings. You can't do this anywhere near as well if you only play the London all the time. For example:

If you play e4,

against the Najdorf you can play:

• English Attack
• Main Line (Bg5)
• Opocensky
• Fischer-Sozin Attack
• Adams Attack
• Zagreb
• Amsterdam

(Or you can play some anti-sicilians like Alapin or Closed Sicilian although they are not the best tries for white.)

against the Caro-Kann:

• Main Line (Nc3)
• Advance
• Fantasy
• Two Knights Attack
• Panov Attack
• Exchange

against the French:

• Main Line (Nc3 leading to: Winawer, Steinitz, Classical, Burn, MacCutcheon, Rubinstein)
• Tarrasch
• Advance
• Two Knights Attack
• King's Indian Attack

against e5:

• Spanish
• Italian
• Scotch
• King's Gambit
• Vienna
• Four Knights Game

If you play d4 (main line with c4)

against King's Indian you can play:

• Classical
• Bayonet Attack
• Sämisch
• Averbakh
• Four Pawns Attack
• Makogonov
• Fianchetto

against Grünfeld:

• Exchange
• Russian
• Petrosian System
• Brinckmann Attack
• Neo-Grünfeld

against Semi-Slav:

• Meran
• Stoltz
• Botvinnik
• Moscow
• Anti-Moscow

What I mean to demonstrate by this is that your arsenal of openings, the tools you use, are extremely personal and customisable. Totally different from the London which is just one rigid setup. Someone may say "that's too much to learn" but this is a fairly uninspired view of chess as the variety of openings and positions gives so much life to the game.