is London the best chess opening?

@ToastBread_1

The win rate is a factor on whether the opening is good or not.

Kádas Opening (1.h4) has the most winrate (as the first move) among the masters but it doesn't make the Kádas Opening any better as well.

Yeah, because it's played by masters and when only they know they have a high chance of winning, it's disrespect to their opponent, of course they win, I'm talking about the average player's opening compared to the London, not Master's win rate.

Five or six years ago, a guy at a tournament asked me what I play against 1.b3. I told him 1…a5. He laughed. We were paired in the next round. The game began 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 a5. I outplayed him in the middle game and won.

Last February, an old friend and I played in a tournament. That game began 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.b3 a5. In the first sixteen moves, I played 11 pawn moves and 5 knight moves. I won his bishop that started on c1 when I trapped it on g3. From there I launched a decisive attack against his king.

That starting move doesn't mean anything, it's just that your opponent made a mistake and you seized the game.

The win rate is not a factor at all, the most important factor is, how well does the opening do when after the opening, when top (a few) moves is played, the winrate is the most important factor.

And that is calculated by the chess engines.

You just said "the win rate is the most important factor"

I agree that beginner/novice players would generally be well served to start out studying the likes of Greco and Morphy. That is, begin your chess journey by focusing on acquiring a solid understanding and foundation in the fundamentals. No decent player would argue against that.

The reason I chose to point to Magnus Carlsen as a player of the London System is to make (what should be) the obvious point that the best player in the world would not typically risk his reputation and possibly his fortune by playing inferior openings against world-class competitors, especially in world-class competitions. The London is not a bad opening. That many titled and world-class players frequently play it against high level competition is a testament to that. If you consistently lose with it, it is not because of the opening per se, but due to your lack of chess skill.

I don't want to study any famous chess player lol

The winrate calculated with chess engines. Please read my comment again.

It's still some type of win rate, you realize that, right? Also please stop spelling win rate wrong, it's two words not one.

I looked that up, it's winrate.

Now I'm gonna be offline for a while. Bye!

Byeee! Chess.com says it's win rate NOT win rate, see ya later!

Winrate as one word is a neologism that is trending well. It was long win rate, then win-rate. All three remain acceptable.

Pay for the ads bruh

Hiya.

But it's worth looking at games played by masters not to try to memorise but just as an indication of general patterns they employ.

I don't mean a lot but maybe a few times.

Studying other stuff does that too, which is why I do that I only like master games when it's like Frank Marshall's double brilliant sacrifice.

Yea but you can/might also try looking at master games where nothing spectacular happens at all.
Just a kind of suggestion for learning about what happens in most games. Or doesn't happen.

So like to master different types of game positions! Yeah, of course!

100% Greco