is London the best chess opening?

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

Ok!

The Moller Attack. Wonderful! I took a year where I stopped playing 1. c4 and played 1. e4, my main intention being to play that Moller Attack. My rating nosedived that year from 1800 FIDE to less than 1550 but it paved the way for me reaching 2000 because of the tactical ideas I learned that year. I recognised the basic pattern as soon as I saw the game you posted.

Yes, what is this opening could you inform me?

When I was captain of Wigan first team, back in the day, we were playing Leyland in a league match and my friend Brett Lund was on top board for them. I played a guy called Peter Smyth on top board and I played on second, I think. We were similar grades so it was legit but it was for the team. So I think Brett was black and played 1. ...e5 and a bit daftly, Peter went ...g6, so Brett had what he wanted. Open h file. Brett was about 2350 FIDE and Peter about 1850.

0-1.