is the London a good opening

#2

Catching a glimpse of your idea of 'beauty of chess' is quite repulsive and disheartening. Analyse your thoughts and work on them, before sharing this monstrosity with fellow beginners who do not know any better

#4 Would you say the same about the Italian Game?

London creates boring lazy players. They get so lazy that I can play h5 on move 2 and despite it being a dubious move, I win their bishop. They blunder almost all the time. 

They should try to learn a Queen's Gambit where you can face almost anything. I love the Semi-Slav and for some d4 players don't like to play Queen's Gambit especially playing into a Semi-Slav

yes, it is a good opening.

With the Italian, it doesn't really work against almost everything. I play the French and many times, I am able to win their bishop as seen in this pgn

Even if they create an escape for the bishop, the bishop becomes passive as it can't get out fast enough to be effective

Here is a nice trap that gets so many London players it hurts. They play d4, you play d6, they play Bf4, you play c6, they close down the pawn chain and you offer g5. If they take it, and a surprisingly large number do, you play the queen to the a file and fork their king and bishop. If they don’t take, well, Leningrad Dutch. When they resign, I block them.

I normally don’t like trappy chess, but for the London I make an exception.

I can't see the PGN...

1. d4 d6 2. Bf4 c6 3. e3 g5 4. Bxg5 Qa5+ 5. Qd2 Qxg5 ... I was explaining it in case some beginners were watching.

Let's see if it works now. In case it doesn't work 1.e4 e6 2.Bc4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bb3 a5. Many players will not realize that the bishop can be trapped and play 5.Nf3 a6

Yeah, I can see it now. Thanks!

The way it was explained to me is that the London isn't exactly an opening, but a whole system, where reactionary moves are replaced by a move progression that never changes regardless of whether black plays symmetrical, Gruenfeld, King or Queen indian, etc. 

I think brand new players should play it as a way to get their feet wet, so to speak. It's simple enough to entice novice players into pursuing more advanced opening theories after mastering something so simple.

The London is a fine opening.

Most top players have it as part of their repertoire. Carlsen, for example, enjoys playing it from time to time.

The arguments against it usually address London players who play the opening wrong, or don't fully understand what they're doing with it, and play it by rote instead of actually thinking about their moves.

But that can apply to any opening (system or not).

Honestly, I find that Stonewall players are far more repetitive in their play than London players (see example setup below)

... yet London players seem to attract more disdain (even though the London is arguably more flexible and dynamic than the Stonewall).

I should start doing that! I many only thin the herd, but the symbolic importance of removing them from sight would be enough.

There's nothing wrong with the London. After all, it's played at the world championship level. Sure, low-level players can play it badly and without understanding, but the same is true for every other opening. It can also be played well, with good understanding of its principles and nuances. If you think it's simple and boring, that's because you don't understand it and don't want to learn its nuances.

The London has been my mainstay as white for years. Most of my best games have come with the London. Here's one of my favorites, and I doubt anyone would claim that it's bad, boring, system chess.