I hate playing black against super unambitious d4 openings.

Whenever I play against someone who plays d4, then doesn't play c4, it makes me want to shoot myself.

2. nf3 

2. bc4 or bf4

2. nc3

All crap. It leads to 20 moves of shuffling pieces around aimlessly until someone makes a tactical blunder or misses a pawn push (usually the other person). Its not a slow positional strangling, its a slow game period. Most of them don't even lead to cool endgames.

Anyone else feel this way?

1. d4 2. Bc4 is not possible.

I play the Queen's Gambit as white, not any of these systems, and sure the London and Colle are very quiet, but I don't get the point of your post. If people want to play unambitiously, so be it. You should try to play dynamically against their passive openings, or better yet, watch GM Shankland's videos on beating passive QP openings and then see if you have these problems.

The main reason I think people play these openings is that people have school, or jobs, or family that they need to attend to, and they don't have time to spend on learning random variations of sharp KID or Grunfeld theory and would rather just play the same sort of thing over and over again. Sure it leads to uneventful games but it's their decision.

i really hate  d4 openings too- always same structures , and boring play!

reallly nice that someone else recognizes that d4 is not thrilling as e4 !

What's wrong with 2.Nf3?  The knight will go here anyway and you don't know if you want the pawn on c4 yet or not. 

I must say that to clump them all together as "utter crap" is a bunch of baloney.  I play a few of them myself!

London System - UTTER CRAP! (Note the all caps!)  You might as well not play chess and offer a draw on move 3!

Torre Attack - Only works against Nf6/e6 or Nf6/g6.  After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5?!, 3...Ne4 and Black should be very happy (I know I would be)

Trompowsky Attack - I don't trust 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 because of many recent ideas with 2...f6!, but 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5! I've played many times, and still do occasionally.

Veresov Attack - After 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5, Play often leads to King Pawn Openings, like 3...e6 4.e4 is a French, for example.  I used to play this as White back in 2004/2005, but 3...Nbd7 and 3...c5 seem to both give Black full equality.

Colle System - The old lines of the Koltonowski with 9.e4 are no good, but White has a dangerous attack with 9.b4! (The Phoenix Attack)

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit - UTTER CRAP!  You might as well resign.  You're already lost!

There is nothing unambitious about the Torre, Trompowsky, Veresov, or Phoenix Attack!

No, I like d4 openings! I used to play d4 all the time. I just hate d4 without c4.

Yeah, I mean 2.nf3 leads to slavs and QGD games, and its okay to play against the torre, but the London and Colle are definitely unambitious, and the main reason it irritates me is that I play against it a lot in the 1600~ Live standard area. I hate these openings purely because the players only play them because they most likely cant play c4.

The only crap in this thread is your comment about the London-System and the Blackmar-Diemer...

Both openings have a good reputation among club players...and i think your are also a club player and not a grand master...feel free to play your high value standard openings, but dont start to cry if you lose against the BDG...

I dunno man, blackmar-diemer, whatever, but London System? Probably the most boring chess set-up ever. Waste's whites advantage. Its like both sides are playing black.

And i realize that you dont know what you are talking about...ive played the London-Systems for years on higher club level, till i switched to the BDG, and i won many games with a kingside attack...

The London-System is perfect for amateur players, who dont have the time to study hours and hours on the Sicilian or the Queens Gambit.

And to be honest...does it make you automatically a better chess player, if you try to memorize 20-move-lines in the Queens Gambit or the Ruy Lopez instead of playing a standard-set-up as the London?

Yeah, dude, you aren't Carlsen. The only reason they play unambitious lines is because they ARE ambitious to the super super GM who's only chance at winning are these unknown unambitious lines because they have all the other openings memorized to the nth move. Regular GM and below it offers the player no serious advantage and leads to many many draws. Boring.

@@@Dark_Falcon

I see your point as per the sicilian, I suppose. I don't play sicilian and when I'm white I play a Grand Prix or c3 - the closed sicilians, but the QG is theory heavy? I don't really think so. Unless you are a just an amazingly great player with excellent memory, QG is mainly about playing the proper themed move. Not about having forcing lines memorized. 

But yeah, I definitely respect the players more than play "real" chess because systems like the London are a crutch.

If the point is to play an opening to where the player that makes the last mistake loses, doesn't it make sense to play an opening with more chances to make mistakes, quicker and sooner?

Playing slow boring openings means fewer chances to make mistakes. It seems like you're the one who doesn't get it.

Just a second ago you were saying there was one truth, now you are saying its in the eye of the beholder.

You can play your really dry positions in an attempt to be like Carlsen, and I'll play a real opening where both my opponent and I are expected to play good moves.

Have fun shuffling your pieces, and thats all it will be, is shuffling pieces. You have no where near the positional understanding of Carlsen, so anything that might make the position interesting to him is going to be invisible to you.

Sure, I bet you also like to play the french exchange.

What I hear is somebody who, honestly, isn't even playing difficult positional chess. Positional chess is awesome. Love me any number of d4 openings.... but there is a line.

Perhaps if you pressed your opponent to make a mistake, instead of waiting for him to blunder on his own, you'd have a footing. To me, it seems like you play a non-ambitious setup and wait for the other guy to lose. GJ, you're a real chess professional /sarcasm.

When you can actually make something of your dry positions for yourself, get back to me.

You could always try Chess960, hard to actually say what is a "boring" or "exciting" opening

Is this a joke? I remember GM Miezes going on a streak with the exchange some years ago. He even played 1.c4 e6. 2.e4 to get this position! I remember Nigel Short having a great game against another GM that really did want to draw and place well in a tournament. That game wasn't boring at all. 

But anyway I think this complaint comes from people not getting the tabiyas they want. I mean no offense but unless you are playing GMs that want to draw you as a cruel joke I doubt the openings are the reason you are not winning games some 30 moves later. I mean you're basically saying that all someone has to do is put a bishop on f4 if they don't want to lose to you. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I also noticed that in your last game you used a hedgehog setup which isn't very ambitious at all. It takes two to tango... 

I'm not saying the London is my favorite way to play a chess game but White is going first and if I can't break into my opponent's position that isn't his problem... I mean I could just say tldr; do something about it because the London isn't going anywhere especially with Gata Kamsky, a 2700 GM, using it. And it's also a pretty good sweeper opening for GMs in simuls. Maybe you've been lucky to get only boring games eh? 

My only advice is to put a pawn on ...d5 against these things and go with it. If White wants to mate you on h7 then go ahead and let him try. Find counterplay in these positions in which White is trying to get an attack. Playing these "GM-approved, take the draw" setups aren't going to get you what you want anyway.

To OP; You have no control of what opponent plays in the opening.  If you want to spice up play, play 1... f5! against d4, c4 and Nf3. 

"Shoot myself" is what I feel with the French Defense: 

1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

Hey man, all you haters. All I was saying is that if you don't play c4 after d4, you're an unambitious chess player.

I'm sure this is the correct assesment. 

@TitanGC, yeah I didn't know that was a hedgehog system, I just played moves that seemed to work in the position. I didn't realize that black was supposed to play wildly and stupidly against super solid setups.

challenge me! I will give you an exiting game. 

Your emotional response alone is worth playing the London system against you. This is exactly one top GM's strategy when playing white, to have knowledge of a wide range of openings, and play whatever will annoy his current opponent.