The problems with the london system and caro kann + why they are so hated.

the alien gambit is dubious

and in order to play the panov as soon as possible you play exd5 and c4, which pressures the center and gives white Nf3 and Qb3. you can be in the panov as early as move 4, or as late as move 12

What do you want man? First you complain about getting slow positions that end deep into the end game, now you are complaining about positions which are confrontational, risky and sharp. At this point you are complaining to complain.

"Complaining to complain"...he's been doing that since the first post in this thread. People who "hate" the London or any other opening should just...not play those openings.

Trolling??? ughhhh not really.

He might not be able to spell Magnus Carlsen... but he's pretty accurate when it comes to Gata Kamsky

From Chessgames.com data base as white

Sicilian (214 games ) 
B90 B47 B33 B97 B32
 Queen's Pawn Game (214 games ) .................. 99% are the London or a sub line... in which he has a 46% win rate. D02 A46 A45 D00 A40

Ruy Lopez (131 games ) 
C91 C67 C78 C65 C80
 French Defense (58 games ) 
C11 C18 C10 C02 C16
 Ruy Lopez, Closed (54 games) 
C91 C84 C89 C92 C85
 Sicilian Najdorf (54 games ) 
B90 B97 B96 B91 B92

It appears that when Gata Kamsky played 1.d4 he was going to play the London.

People here have the false thinking that the frequency of what GMs play at that level denotes the Opening overall effectiveness. Baring true garbage like some of the Gambit play seen here (in a sole attempt to swindle) Their opening choices has everything to do with being evasive and allusive to prepare against.

Example cited. Kamsky was/is a 1.e4 player. The London must have been a Shock and Awe weapon to people that prepped for his Sicilian or Ruy lopez! Given the amount of times Kamsky played it, and his win rate.... he wasn't winging it because he had nothing prepped

*cough cough* the caro-kann got me to 1800 and won me tons of games, as well as taught me how to play around pawn structure, but if you want to complain about an opening that I used to crush higher rated players than you, go right ahead.

I've never played the London seriously, but not because it's bad, simply because I didn't like the structure that arose. I think if a 1200 knows how to play around the structure, or plays the Jobava, it's a very good opening. Just my opinion though, but I know what got me to high 2000's quickly.

Openings and any ensuing middlegames therein are only as interesting or boring as you allow them to be. If you find the London boring to play against, choose to discourage it.

I started this account to practice the Scandanavian and Old Benoni as antiprep openings and have noticed that very few of my 1d4 opponents are able to transition into a London setup after ...1c5. Often, London players will proceed after ...1c5 to thoughtlessly move the bishop to f4, leading to the need for the queen to recapture after ..2cxd4. My experience with London players is that any unexpected disruptions in the opening setup leads to an early collapse. If you are struggling to pivot d4-Bf4 games into a more dynamic setting, I recommend the Old Benoni.

This is not to say that the London is a bad opening. I've used it to great effect in OTB settings. And have lost complex and interesting middlegames arising from it as well.

the open sicilian is confrontational, risky, and sharp, yet its not dubious and not completely losing for white

I use the Caro all the time and it holds put pretty well

over time ive found ways around having to bore myself with another london player, but its the fact that its a majority of people playing it rather than a minority (in my games)

the funny part about your games is that when you are faced with 3.Nc3 or the panov, you lose much more than you win, but when faced agianst a more closed structure, you win much more than you lose.

This definitely says something to me. What do you think? This tells me that the most challenging way to meet the caro is with a more open game.

One person's results doesn't reflect the opening's capability, admittedly my playstyle has changed over time, and I'm still learning how to handle positions, especially open ones. I hate the Sicilian, not because it's bad by any means, but it doesn't fit my playstyle. You're not proving your point by making fun of my results with the caro-kann in some variations, you're proving a weakness of mine that I'm working on. It in no way "refutes" my argument or the opening, but if you believe you could beat an expert, such as Karpov, by just playing an open game, be my guest.

I also agree that an open game might theoretically be the best way to counter the caro-kann, but I'm not sure how that proves anything concerning your original post or mine.

what this reflects is that most caro kann players (the ones ive looked at on chess.com) have a harder time when faced with open positions where they dont get their slav structure than closed positions where their play is simple and ideas based

Furthermore, I'm not sure what stats you were looking at, my overall win rate with the caro-kann is 55%, and about 12% draws. I rarely lose with the opening, even in open games. I still agree that it might be the best way to meet it, and I know that open games are a weakness of mine, but apparently, not only can't you prove your point without attacking me, but unless I'm mistaken you had to modify my stats to prove your point.

Sure I agree, but I might point out that for someone who improved at chess by "learning ideas, not theory" I've done quite well. Open games are an integral part of the game, but ideas win open games, afterall, IQP positions are considered "open" and if you understand the ideas for both sides, you immediately gain an advantage. I would argue that if I understood the pawn structure in an opening, I could play the best moves or "theory" easily and without study.

For those who find the London "boring" to play against ... remember that you're free to choose different ways to play against it. You don't have to play your same trusty defense every time.

Try playing the Hippo against it. Maybe a Queen's Indian structure against it. Perhaps a KID setup. How about a Dutch?

Pick your poison. Mix it up. Facing another London player a few games after your previous one? Play a different defense than you did the previous game. If you put your pawn on d5 last time ... try putting your pawn on d6 this time.

Or if you defend against 1.d4 with 1...d5 all the time - maybe it's time to realize that you might be playing a bit boring, too ...

Try mixing it up now and then with 1...Nf6 or 1...d6 or 1...c5 or 1...g6 or ... (you get the idea). You don't have to wear the same shirt seven days a week ...

I depend on the gullible who believe everything from on-line videos to play popular systems terribly.

I dont really find the london boring, i find it annoying. When 60% of your 1.d4 games are people trying to play the london instead of the many other options, it makes you annoyed and wonder why this is all that anyone is playing, and why this of all openings? With the london system white seeks the same thing every game, no varying pawn structure, no desire for a different pacing or attack, and no mistakes to really learn from. At least with 2.c4 you have the option to do many different things and arent limited to your reverse slav structure. With 2.c4 you learn more, enjoy more games, receive varying structures and learn how you use them to win, and many other other things.

You have to resign yourself and accept it, everyone plays their own game with their own style and plays what makes them feel most comfortable.

Probably when you are at a higher level, you will start to encounter opponents who play openings other the London System after 1.d4.

At the chess club last night, I played a young lady, a first-timer at the club who had just learned to play chess about a year ago. Guess what she played! Caro-Kann and London. I did beat her in those games, but she was not such an easy pushover. I'm sure she'll do well regardless of what openings she'll be playing in the coming years.

You could argue it, but it would be a stupid thing to argue. Regardless of the position of the pieces, don't be ridiculous. You can't simplify chess like that.