Countering the London System, Colle and Trompowsky: IM Valeri Lilov's Six Videos and a Lesson on the Chess Opening Market

In 2026, while the world was glued to the football World Cup in Russia, I sat in a Delhi café replaying a game between two amateur players on Lichess. White played the London System; Black struggled for forty moves and lost a position the engine assessed as drawn. Both were rated above 2026. The question I asked did not sound like a woman, but the answers they dodged did not sound like men: why do thousands of club-level players choose opening systems whose essence they do not understand?

Four years later, that question returned to me in the form of an instructional product by IM Valeri Lilov, a Bulgarian trainer. He offers six videos teaching Black to counter seven systems White uses to avoid heavy theory: the London System, Colle System, Trompowsky Attack, Torre Attack, Catalan, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and the Richter-Veresov. It sounds compelling. But the way it is packaged tells me more about the modern chess market than the content inside.

The empty stadium that year hid a tactical diagram resting quietly under a seat instead of a roar. Football froze, chess froze, but the coaching market did not. It simply migrated from the pitch to the screen, from the board to online courses.

To understand why such a product exists, one must understand the market that produces it. After 1.d4 d5, White normally plays 2.c4, opening the Queen's Gambit with a mountain of theory: Slav, Semi-Slav, QGA, Orthodox Queen's Gambit. These are systems the engine has analyzed to move thirty, where human memory loses to Stockfish's speed. A 1600-rated player has no time to memorize thirty moves of a Slav line, let alone understand why each move is needed.

Many club-level players choose avoidance. Instead of 2.c4, they play the Colle, Trompowsky, Torre, London, Catalan, Blackmar-Diemer, and Richter-Veresov. Each system has its own logic, but all share one trait: they sidestep dense theory and push the game into strategic territory where structural understanding beats memorized lines.

For Black, this is a different nightmare. You might spend six months learning the Slav only for your opponent to play 2.Bf4 with the London System. You prepare for the Queen's Gambit, they play the Trompowsky 2.Bg5. Your knowledge is not wrong — it simply goes unused. That is the market gap. And IM Valeri Lilov jumps into it. Seven systems, six videos. The number itself tells the depth story.

Let us be blunt: seven systems across six videos averages less than one video per system. For complex systems like the Catalan or Richter-Veresov, a thirty-minute video cannot reach the second layer of theory. But that is exactly the selling point: not theory, but "practical plans".

Let us analyze each system seriously, because that is the only way to evaluate a coaching product.

The London System (1.d4, 2.Bf4, 3.e3, 4.Bd3, 5.Nf3, 6.O-O) is the safest setup White can play against almost any Black response. I have watched hundreds of London games at open tournaments in India. White is not trying to win with the opening. They are trying not to lose, then waiting for Black to break structure. To counter, Black needs an early c5, a queen on b3 or b6, and a bishop trade on the g3-c7 diagonal via Bf5 or Bg6. The plan sounds simple; execution is not. One tempo lost and the London turns into a grinder.

The Colle System (1.d4, 2.Nf3, 3.e3, 4.Bd3) is the most underrated — and therefore sometimes the most dangerous. White concedes the center on pawns and reclaims it with pieces. If Black does not understand, White breaks through with e4-e5, tearing open the Black king. If Black understands, a Sämisch-Nimzo defense with c5 and Nf6 neutralizes everything. The Colle's weakness: it is easily blocked when Black develops correctly.

The Trompowsky Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5) is a structure-wrecking system. White trades bishop for knight, dragging Black into doubled pawns or an awkward symmetrical structure. Many 2200+ players use it to bypass preparation. The basic reply: 2...Ne4, forcing the bishop off the diagonal. But like every avoidance system, its value depends on Black's preparation, not the opening itself.

The Torre Attack (1.d4, 2.Nf3, 3.Bg5, 4.e3) is a slower cousin of the Trompowsky. White aims for a healthy pawn structure and then applies strategic pressure. For Black, countering the Torre usually revolves around e6, d5, and a well-timed c5 so White cannot take the center for free.

The Catalan (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2) is the most serious system on the list. It does not avoid theory — it creates its own. It belongs to players seeking long-term pressure on the queenside. Countering the Catalan demands deep structural understanding, not just moves. That a thirty-minute video teaches how to face it is the clearest sign of the product's limited depth.

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4) is a pawn sacrifice for direct attack. It is rare at elite level because Black simply accepts and returns the pawn at the right moment for an advantage. But at club level, it destroys anyone who does not know what defense means. Countering it requires precision in the first ten moves.

The Richter-Veresov (1.d4, 2.Nc3, 3.Bg5) is the rarest system. White plays an unnatural move order to pull Black out of comfort. Its value lies in surprise, not quality. It is easy to counter if Black stays calm and does not panic at unfamiliar structure.

Now, the packaging. In the introduction, these systems are called "extremely dangerous". That is marketing language, not analysis. The London System is not dangerous. It is solid. The Colle is not dangerous. It is passive. The Trompowsky can be annoying, but not dangerous. The truth is that at elite level, none of these systems is treated as a serious threat. 2700 players do not play the London to win. They play it when they want a draw.

And here is the key point: this product is not selling opening theory. It is selling fear.

The fear of a 1800-rated player sitting across from a London System with no idea what to do. The fear of someone who studied the Slav for six months and got crushed by the Trompowsky. The fear that every commercial chess coaching tradition exploits.

I have tracked this market since 2026, when I began my career as a chess player and tournament organizer before moving into media. Twenty years ago, learning openings meant buying books by Gallagher or Nunn. You read, you reasoned, you built lines yourself. Those books did not overpromise. They offered facts, sometimes dry, sometimes hard, but no advertising.

The chess market is different today. Platforms like Chessable and video courses have turned openings into consumer products. A course can be purchased in three clicks. The problem: quality varies wildly, and buyers have no way to assess it before paying.

Regarding IM Valeri Lilov, I found no verified information about his students. No tournament results cited. No rating data. No testimonials from elite players. In a field where ordinary chess teachers have coached 2500+ players, this missing data is a significant gap. I know many IM coaches who are excellent at club level. But I also know that not every IM is a good teacher. A title does not guarantee pedagogy.

I once mispronounced a player's name and then read the position correctly when slow motion appeared before my eyes. This time, I speak loudly before the evidence: this product is designed for 1400-2026 players, not for anyone seeking deep opening understanding.

There is nothing wrong with that. But there is an ethical issue in the marketing. When you call the London System "extremely dangerous", you create FOMO. You sell a solution to a problem you inflated. That is a standard commercial tactic, not technical analysis.

Let us now say where this product is useful. A 1600 player who has never prepared against the London System will learn basic structure from the video. She will know when to push c5, when to trade bishops. That is real knowledge, even at a shallow layer. There is a specific audience this product serves well: beginners preparing, players without coaches, players without time for theory books. For them, a well-structured course beats a random YouTube video.

This is where I humble myself. Twenty years standing in controversy, fire from a 2026 question still burning. But I also know that market criticism does not mean every product is bad. Many IM courses genuinely help beginners improve. The problem is not IM Lilov. The problem is an ecosystem that prevents buyers from distinguishing quality.

So what happens next?

I predict several verifiable things. First, courses like this will keep appearing, because demand exists and production is cheap. Second, platforms like Chessable will develop better review mechanisms, and courses without verified data will sink in ranking. Third, GM coaches will continue to dominate the premium segment, while IMs compete in the middle.

But there is one thing I want readers to consider. When you buy an opening course, you are not buying knowledge. You are buying time. You are buying structure. You are buying the feeling of safety at the board. But that safety can be illusory. And the illusion only breaks when you face an opponent who truly understands the London System, or when you sit in a tournament whose entry fee costs more than the course.

Mistakes are not frightening; picking the footage back up at 2 a.m. is what makes a forecaster.

Silent applause can kill emotion, but it cannot kill tactics.

I want to end with a confession. I bought an opening course from an IM back in 2026. I watched it all, took full notes, then lost seven straight games in the district championship. The course was not wrong. I was, because I bought a plan instead of building understanding. That lesson has stayed with me to this day, as I sit here analyzing someone else's product.

For those considering Lilov's six videos, the question is not "do I need it". The question is "am I learning openings to understand, or to feel safe". If it is the second, save your money and play chess. The board will teach you faster than any video, provided you are patient enough to lose.

As for the chess coaching market as a whole, I believe this is the moment for chess consumers to demand more. Not shorter videos, not bigger promises, but real data. Instructor ratings. Student results. Free lesson samples. Verifiable numbers.

If we do not demand that, we will keep receiving products that sell fear instead of understanding. And in a discipline where the final truth sits on the board, not in the advertisement, that is a long-term loss for everyone — except the people selling the courses.