Least Theoretical Openings

@Jackurokawa I would definitely recommend the London System as well, especially for beginners. I played it almost every game from 750-1000ish before moving on to a more aggressive non-theoretical opening. It teaches you piece development and pawn structure but the negatives are that you don't learn how to adapt your opening to black's response and it comes to bite you when you start wondering why you're plateauing and not improving your play.

Some people play the King's Indian Defense on autopilot the first few moves and I mate them by move 15 90% of the time (even did it to a 1900) I actually tried my same anti-KID setup against GM Hikaru Nakamura and he mated me in 13 lol! This works both ways, you cannot play the London System on autopilot if you're playing someone that knows anti-London lines, at some point you have to know when and where to deviate from London "theory" lol

@cheesecake_assassin Can't believe you didn't attach the game assassin. People want to see London fall.

@Jackurokawa thats probably because the london system isn't actually less theoretical as other openings. In lower levels(probably below 2000 elo?), many times White can be fine out of the opening just by following the same setup. But as you get better, you will notice that the Black player tends to become more creative. Back then, you only get to play against d5 setups or maybe even KID structures but now you encounter moves like ...c5 or a queenside fianchetto and you don't know what to do! The London used to be the opening where Black must be the one to know a lot more theory in order to punish the opposing player's moves, which is now the case in modern times. Now, even White has to learn theory in different structures and the ensuing middlegames because different setups by Black have become more popular. Nowadays, the same setup in all replies by Black isn't just going to cut it. It's kinda like in the Smith-Morra which doesn't look theoretical at all since many players with the White pieces play the same setup, only to get rekt before move 25.

The problem with less theoretical openings is that if they're easy for one side to play they're also easy for the other side as well. Higher up in this thread somebody stated that gambits are easier to play and less theoretical. Actually that's just not true at all because the gambiteer is the one who has to prove that he's got enough attack for the sacrificed material otherwise he simply has a lost endgame. Gambiteers are the ones who need to study more than their opponents.

The best way to learn openings is just to play a LOT of games and see which kinds of positions lead to positive results for you. No two players have exactly the same style. Some players will have "contradictory" styles which is where I fit in. I play the Caro Kann against 1 e4 yet I play the Benoni against 1 d4. For some reason, I just perform miserably when I play the Sicilian.

If you're going to buy chess literature, buy books of tactical puzzles and generally do NOT buy openings books. Personally, I don't own any chess literature at all because I want chess to just be a fun way to pass time and I never wish to overvalue its place in my life.

God I hate playing against the London. Just play ...g6 at one point and then c5 (in a 1. d4 d5 opening) and no more London anymore.

I try to avoid the London like I avoid the Ruy Lopez.

@Pr0crustes KILL HIM!

@Eleuthero Yes, even the London which is an opening played from time to time in the highest level falls in that category. Many Londoneers would say "White's play is easier!" as one of the pros in the London, but really Black's play is too! Two situations arises from the London, either Black equalizes or Black gets a lot of chances due to the complications the Black player made. I stopped playing the London also because of that, and it's boring as hell ngl. The Jobava London is fun to play against Nf6 variations though it isn't really good against d5.

@Nikkoi

Well said, Sir! I played one of the Jobava London's close cousins, the Richter-Veresov Attack, for a while. The Richter also became boring after a while. I always play 1 ... Nf6 and 2 ... c5 against the London and it's many relatives. It seems like people who play the London, Richter, or Colle systems are hugely booked up against 1 ... d5 but far less so against unsymmetrical replies.

Even on YouTube, the coverage of the London and it's relatives seems concentrated on what to do after 1 ... d5. So it's a psychological edge NOT to play 1 ... d5.