Winning a game at 1400 rating is literally impossible.

Absolutely! I do review every game, look at my mistakes and look at my opponent's mistakes and my missed opportunities. It's often painful, but I've only been playing this game seriously for a few months. The 400+ games I've played here are just about the only serious games I've ever played. So, blunders and all, I'm quite proud of my progress. I'm 76 years old, by the way, so nice to know I can still learn. 

You are never too old to learn!  The problems the OP is experiencing (and the ones you are also experiencing) are the growing pains we all went through at that level.  Most of us learn to crawl before we learn to walk ... and walk before we can run.  The same is true for Chess.

400+ rapid games is a lot. I am exhausted after 3 tournament rapid games today lol.

I should play more often myself but my confidence was shoddy at some point and I wasn’t enjoying the game sober.

As long  as you enjoy it is all that matters.

I totally agree.....and I'm trying my best to enjoy every stage of it, including the crawling / growing pains stages. Thanks for the wise words. 

I'm retired, so have plenty of time to play. If it's a tough game, I'll probably stop at 1. Otherwise, I'll play 2 or 3 in a day. I had a mild case of covid a couple months ago and was playing up to 10 in a day while in isolation.  All my games have been played sober.

Au contraire! I had a guy move his king out on his second move, and then move it back on his third move. 

My main problem was I didn’t start tactics training until I cross over 1300 and been playing catch up since last summer. I would recommend you prioritize the (25) allowable rated puzzles per day. I actually upgraded to platinum so I can do more.

Here is an example, I missed a win with Nh4 against a 1900 player in a tournament; didn’t stop me from doing a bishop sacrifice if you are 1900 or 1400.

Not all 1400 or even 1800 are created equal. I believe if you are stronger in tactical and positional accuracy, know your middle game plans/strategies, you can bang with the best of them. On the flip side, I’ve seen people ride hard the London System and Reversed as black to 1800; dry and shortcomings.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/53025679787

Actually, he didn't move his king back right away. It was several moves later. 

I eventually lost this game, but my points were later restored and his account was closed for cheating.  But at the time, it was painful to lose to a guy who not only moved his king on move 2, but was rated 800 points below me. 

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/47872244693?tab=review

Rating is the best descriptor of chess strength. Not playing the London doesn't make you better at middle game plans, tactics and positional play. In fact, tactics, middle game plans and positional play all exist in the London system. When it comes to this game, 22..f6 is an automatic move for me, I don't know why he didn't play it. When it comes to your play, with more experience, you will not play moves like 24.Ng5, allowing Rh8. At move 27. can black play Bxg2 and when king recaptures black plays f6 winning back the knight? Exchanging pieces and winning back the pawn in the process looks good, but I guess your opponent deemed the bishop on b7 more valuable than a knight and a pawn even though he was already up a piece.

Also, I have reached 1900 by playing mainly the London as white and the Slav defense as black, which is close to being the inverse London system.

“What’s wrong with the London? Pretty much everything!” IM Andras Toth.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy-JX7hoy-g

We have the beauty of hindsight.

Sorry man,  the London System and Reversed as black is your main repertoire; I’m going to side with IM Andras Toth and dismiss your advice.

Take a big grain of salt y’all.

I saw immediately f6 before he played it and I saw immediately that Ng4 was bad. These things are automatic to me. If you want, we can play a chess game. I will send you a challenge.

A bad opening choice does not negate all advice.  Personally, I would not recommend lower rated players use the London as a primary weapon for a variety of reasons (mostly to do with long term growth), and I know many coaches who feel the same way.  That said, it is not a dubious opening.

Most players I know who used it as a primary weapon while they were improving hit a hard plateau around 1800 (give or take) as they started running into people who had their Anti-London systems worked out and did not mind draws against players of a similar rating.  When they hit that plateau, they had to go back and learn more diverse openings in order to keep progressing.  It would have saved them some time had they learned those other openings along the way.  There are some notable exceptions.  Andrew Tang being one of the more prominent ones, but even he said it took him longer to reach GM because it was too easy to prepare for him since he primarily played the London as White (and when you are going for norms, you cannot afford to draw too often as White).  Granted, most of us will never have to worry about that, but if you are using the London as a primary weapon and find yourself struggling to get wins around the 1800 range, that may be a potential reason.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/53051978321

1400 (after 8 Jamesons) vs 1900.

OP have fun, 1400 are the best times. 

I was watching my drink more than the game!

He tries to present the fact that not having to spend time learning the opening is a bad thing. He even says "London teaches you not to put work into opening study".
He is jelaous that people can learn openings without putting in the study. My goal is to play an opening well. Opening study is a means to that goal, not a goal in itself. Studying is the means to an end, not an end in itself. No matter how much he doesn't like the fact that you can get good at openings without putting much work (if you played the London for instance), that can't change reality. The goal is to play well the opening, not to study the opening. If the London system allows me to play an opening with way less work than what I would need to put in other openings, that's a plus.

When it comes to exposing yourself to other openings, many people play 1.e4 and you can't play the London against that.

Lol that’s poor sportsmanship!

I was winning the game the whole time.

Sorry I chose Jameson.

We can play again. What are you going to say when you lose to a drunk twice?

let me get another drink.

There’s a grouse in my garden I have to catch first lol

I am down for another game