Quite sad how pathetic the average “London” player is

Amateurs need to test many opening (closed opening, opened, semi closed) in order to play different midle game, different plan in different situation to gain experience and get stronger. When you play your london you play always the same move, always the same different plan. You get used to give up the center though you have whites' pieces. Maybe you will become a very good london player this way but not necessary a very good player period. When a master or even a world champion like Carlsen play the london it's different because he is already very strong. Objectively it's a good opening. Carlsen and many GM I guess played it several time with good results.

My rating is bigger than yours...

I agree that the london system is somewhat narrower than a 1. d4 or 1. e4 mainstream repertoire and maybe one misses some structures, when he concentrates on the london system and has also not that much different structures when playing the black pieces. 

I collected some knowledge in the queen's gambit before, therefore i'm eager to play structures with c4, when it makes sense. And that is what authors suggest against some black move orders. Or at least they give the choice, playing the structure and gaining nothing or trying something different.

Or these lines in a 12 hrs london system video by german WGM Eisatbeth Pähtz:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Bg7 (looks like a pirc to me)

or

 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.h4

So these two lines are not the typical c3-d4-e3-Bf4-Setup. Other authors have also different lines and structures vs. different black moves. 

If one thinks, he could learn the opening with a quite amount of theory and move order issues with a 15-minutes-video-course and then play the first ten moves in every game, it's not a fault by the opening. The same guy would try to play the same slow italian setup (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3) over and over again vs. everything after 1. e4.

One year ago i would disagree but now i agree. When i first discovered the london system it felt like a blessing from above - finally i have a solid opening i can play pretty much against anything without learning that much theory! And indeed, my playing strength quickly increased. But after that my development stagnated because it was always the same story. 3 months ago i stopped playing the london and switched to completely new openings that were more tactical and i finally started making progress again.

The London is OK if you recognise it as a system. It's bad for beginners that think it's a universal opening. They play moves without understanding why. Just by rote.  That's never good.

This is the best reason for you people to start play Fischer Random. Because there still no theory in 960... it means more fun !

Fischer random or 960. Choose one name or the other. Just confusing otherwise.

With friends like Jessie's... 

From the name itself, itiz already random I prefer Fischer Random,ghost.

Be fair, now. It is a genuine attempt to bore opponents into losing.

It's subtle. With nuances.

ok but just because Magnus plays this doesn't mean its good. In fact, GMs try to play dubious stuff such as the Philidor that dont immediately give them a lost position in order to outprep and shock their opponents.

 Even if blacks equalize after the opening against the london it can be difficult to remain the equality in the middle game. Even if you have not objectively an "advantage" but just an easier position to play with clear plan and not your opponent it's enough. Anyway you can't say there are "dubious" opening. There is nothing wrong with the london or the Philidor. Opening which are not the main line are not necessary "dubious".

My weapon against london players: Intervene with their opening plan as soon as possible. Then they are forced to think and not play on auto pilot.

It's always instructive and inspiring to read a 1500-player's judgments on various chess openings. Who needs grandmasters

Magnus plays it because he plays other GMs who can be assumed to know a lot of openings to quite a depth. Therefore since sooner or later we emerge from openings into something resembling a middle game, why not do that sooner rather than later by playing an ultra solid systematic opening where white can more or less improvise early on due to the solidity of the opening. This gives, on average, more moves in which to outplay someone.

There is no need to assume that it is more effective at a lower  level than playing an opening line that's complex and rather sharp. Indeed, the reverse will be the case.

I have just applied logic to this question. Sorry about the arrogance.

Everyone should simply stick with the ultimate, perfectly simple opening:

e4.

+1

d4 is stronger.

d4 is supported by the Q. That makes a big difference because it gives white an extra move to build a centre in openings like the Modern. White just plays d4, c4 and e4 in the first three moves.