After 1.d4 d5: The Forgotten Opening 'Queens' and the Rebellion Against Theory

At board four of an open tournament in Shanghai, I sat close enough to hear the pieces strike the wood. White was a twenty-one-year-old player, rated nearly two hundred Elo points below his opponent. Black was a seasoned international master who had spent thousands of hours memorizing every branch of the Slav Defense and the Orthodox Queen's Gambit. Yet after only eighteen moves, White had a position that felt almost implausibly comfortable. White did not play 2.c4. White played 2.Nf3, 3.e3, 4.Bd3, building the Colle System, then patiently pushed e4 and blew open the kingside. The international master sat still, hands clasped, and I knew: he had not lost because he calculated poorly. He had lost because he had not prepared for an opening that an entire generation of players dismissed as 'not serious.' That moment reminded me of a summer afternoon years earlier, when I first sat down to analyze a game by a female player I admired. She too chose paths that others overlooked, and she too was underestimated simply because she refused to walk the theoretical road the crowd deemed 'correct.' The chessboard and the playing field, it turns out, tell the same story: the forgotten one is often the one quietly preparing the decisive blow. This is why I decided to write this analysis. After 1.d4 d5, more and more players with the white pieces look for ways to sidestep the enormous body of theory in the Slav Defense, the Semi-Slav, the Queen's Gambit Accepted, and the Orthodox Queen's Gambit. They do not play 2.c4. This approach sounds unambitious, but the painful experience of many players has proven the opposite: the Colle System, the Trompovsky Attack, the Torre Attack, and the London System are extremely dangerous. Black is forced to prepare for each one, and that is no small burden. I have watched hundreds of games at open tournaments across Asia, and what I have noticed is this: strong amateur players, those without a large analytical team, are quietly migrating to this family of openings. They make no noise. They simply win. Before going deeper into each system, I need to frame the problem correctly. The body of theory after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is one of the densest jungles in chess. The Slav Defense with branches such as the Meran and the Botvinnik Variation; the Semi-Slav with its complex attacks; the Queen's Gambit Accepted with its resilient pawn structures; and the Orthodox Queen's Gambit with its centuries-old tradition. Each branch splits into dozens of sub-branches, each containing moves that engines have confirmed as best for both sides. To master even part of this jungle, a player needs hundreds of hours of memorization, not to mention time to understand its essence. For a professional with a support team, that is feasible. For an amateur with a day job, it is nearly impossible. And that is where the 'forgotten' opening systems appear as an escape route. What is fascinating is that these openings are not new at all. The Colle System dates back to the 1920s, tied to the name of Edgar Colle of Belgium. Trompovsky, Torre, London — all have existed for nearly a century. But they have never been treated fairly in mainstream theoretical literature. People call them 'openings for the lazy,' 'weapons of those who refuse to learn theory.' That is a judgment rooted in prejudice, and I believe it has caused many talented players to miss a genuinely strategic weapon. In his series of six instructional videos, International Master Valeri Lilov, a Bulgarian trainer, does something few resources dare to do: he treats each opening in this group with full seriousness, and for each one he presents a concrete plan for Black. This is the crucial point many overlook. The issue is not what White plays, but how Black must respond. Beyond the four main openings, Lilov also delves into the Catalan, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and the Richter-Veresov Opening. Seven openings, each with its own plan for Black. That is a complete defensive map for anyone who has ever been ambushed by this seemingly harmless family of openings. Let us begin with the Colle System, the opening that starts the whole story. The Colle System follows 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3, after which White develops Bd3, c3, and Nbd2. On the surface, this is a modest, even slow, way to develop. But hidden behind that surface is an extremely clear attacking plan: White will push e4, open the center, and pour pieces toward the kingside. If Black does not react precisely, White will have a powerful kingside attack with pieces already placed in position. The strength of the Colle lies in the fact that White needs almost no theory. White simply executes a fixed sequence of moves, then transitions into the middlegame with a plan already shaped. Black, meanwhile, must find a way to counter a plan he may never have encountered. Lilov's plan for Black is to control the e4 square and put pressure on the center before White can complete development. Black needs to place pieces on key squares, especially controlling e4 with a knight or a pawn, and to seek exchanges that reduce White's attacking potential before it erupts. I once watched a game in which Black reacted too passively. White pushed e4, exchanged pawns, and the knight jumped to e5, and within a few moves the position became an unstoppable attack. Black was not wrong in theory, but was one tempo too slow. In chess, being one tempo slow against a clear plan usually means defeat. Next is the Trompovsky Attack, beginning with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5. The move 2.Bg5 immediately poses a question to Black: where does the knight on f6 go? Black can play 2...Ne4, 2...e6, or 2...d5. Each choice leads to a completely different position, and White is ready for every possibility. What I like about the Trompovsky is its 'problem-setting' quality. White does not try to gain an immediate advantage. White forces Black to make a decision early, and in many cases Black will choose wrongly due to lack of preparation. Lilov's plan for Black here is to keep a solid pawn structure, not allow White to trade favorably, and exploit the fact that White has spent a move developing the bishop to g5 — a spot that can become a weakness if White is careless. The Torre Attack follows 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5, or 2.Nf3 then 3.Bg5 depending on the move order. Torre is closely related to the Trompovsky in that both use the bishop on g5 to pressure the knight on f6. But Torre has a different pawn structure, often leading White to control the center with pawns and seek an attack on the kingside or queenside. The subtlety of Torre lies in its flexibility. From Torre, White can transpose into Colle-like structures, or into a queenside attacking position. Black needs to identify White's direction early to place pieces correctly. Lilov emphasizes that Black should avoid getting the bishop locked in, and should seek to trade off that g5 bishop as early as possible if given the chance. And then there is the London System, perhaps the most famous and most debated opening in this group. The London System follows 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4, or 2.Bf4 immediately. White puts the bishop on f4, then develops e3, Bd3, Nbd2, c3, and finally looks to push e4 or place a knight on e5. The London System has undergone a strong revival over the past decade. Top players, including some in the world's top ten, have begun using it seriously. This has made the old criticisms obsolete. If the strongest players in the world choose the London, it can no longer be 'the opening for the lazy.' But precisely because the London has become more popular, Black also has more resources to counter it. Lilov's plan for Black in the London System focuses on controlling the center with pawns, especially the timely push of c5 or e5, and on seeking to trade off White's strong f4 bishop. Black must avoid letting White enjoy a comfortable space advantage, and must create weaknesses in White's pawn structure. There is one thing I always tell my students: the London System does not win because it is theoretically strong, but because it forces Black to think. White has a clear plan; Black does not. This asymmetry in preparation is the London's real weapon. Beyond the four main openings, Lilov also devotes time to the Catalan, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and the Richter-Veresov Opening. The Catalan, with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2, is an opening of great strategic depth, where White accepts a slow but resilient position, with the bishop on g2 controlling the long diagonal. Black needs to understand the pawn structure well to avoid being squeezed in the middlegame. The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3, is an ambitious gambit where White sacrifices a pawn for initiative and attack. This is an opening Black must prepare carefully, because if Black accepts the gambit naively, White can unleash a lightning attack. The Richter-Veresov Opening, with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5, is another way to sidestep mainstream theory, combining the ideas of the Trompovsky with developing the knight to c3. This is an uncommon but trap-filled opening, and Black needs to know how to neutralize it without falling into passivity. What impressed me about Lilov's approach is its systematic nature. He does not just give moves; he explains the logic behind each plan. For each opening, he answers three questions: what is White trying to do, what must Black prevent, and how should Black build his position. That is the mindset of a trainer, not a compiler of theory. Now I want to spend the rest of this piece on what I consider most important: the contrarian angle. There is a popular notion that these 'system' openings are a solution for lazy players who do not want to learn theory. I think that notion is both right and wrong, and it is precisely that ambiguity that makes it interesting. It is right in this sense: these openings genuinely reduce the theoretical burden. An amateur can play the London System for hundreds of games without memorizing too much. That is a real benefit, and there is nothing shameful about it. But it is wrong in this sense: these openings are not easy to play. To play the Colle or the London at a high level, a player needs deep understanding of pawn structures, piece placement, and the timing of central pawn pushes. These skills are far harder than memorizing a sequence of moves. In other words, these openings do not replace learning chess; they shift the focus from memorization to understanding. And here is the key point I want to stress: the real value of this opening family is not that it helps you avoid theory, but that it gives you control of the narrative. When you play the London System, you are no longer reacting to your opponent's theory. You are the one setting the rules. You force your opponent into your world, where you have prepared more thoroughly than they have. In that context, I want to connect to a theme I always brood over: systematic forgetting. Women's chess was once treated as a second-class world, just as these openings were once considered 'not serious.' Judit Polgar, the strongest female player in history, had to fight not only opponents across the board, but the prejudice of an entire community. She did not need pity; she needed to be watched. And when people truly watched, they realized she was stronger than most of the men sitting across from her. Her pressing block was not on the tactical board, but in a heart no one had dared to trust. That line, I think, also applies to these forgotten openings. Their strength is not on the mainstream theoretical board, but in the fact that they have never been properly valued. There is a strange parallel between the two stories. Openings like the London, the Colle, and the Trompovsky are dismissed as 'not up to standard' because they do not appear in world championship games. Women's chess was also once dismissed as 'not up to standard' because people refused to look at it. In both cases, the underestimation comes not from objective analysis, but from the habit of looking where the crowd looks. This leads me to another contrarian angle: commercial value and competitive value often run in opposite directions. The mainstream openings are the most studied, the most sold in books, the most taught. But precisely for that reason, they are also the best understood, and the edge gained from them keeps shrinking. Conversely, the least-studied openings hide greater potential for those willing to put in the work. I once told a student: if you want to beat a player stronger than you, do not try to outplay him in the position he knows best. Drag him into a position he has never seen. Forgotten openings are the tools for doing exactly that. Of course, I am not naive enough to think these openings are a silver bullet. They have their drawbacks. The Colle System can lead to a cramped position if White cannot push e4. The Trompovsky can cost White time if Black reacts accurately. The London System can become dull and offer no advantage if Black knows how to neutralize it. But that is precisely why preparing for Black matters so much. And this is where I want to praise Lilov's work. He does not try to sell you a magic solution. He hands you a map and lets you find your own way. In chess, as in sport generally, that is the only path to growth. I have seen a generation ready to press, and I believe they will never retreat. Today's young players are no longer bound by old prejudices about openings. They play what works, not what is deemed 'correct.' And when they play forgotten openings, they do not do so out of laziness. They do so because they understand that real strength lies in preparation, not in following the crowd. Forgotten queens — that is how I refer to this opening family. They are not celebrated on book covers, not analyzed in prestigious lectures. But they are still there, patiently waiting for players brave enough to walk their own path. If you are a player with the black pieces after 1.d4 d5, and you have ever been ambushed by the London or the Colle, take this as an invitation. Do not memorize another Slav branch. Spend time understanding White's plans in these openings, and build your own response. Because in chess, as in life, the one who prepares for the unexpected always holds the advantage. I believe that in the coming years, this family of openings will no longer be called 'forgotten.' They will be studied seriously, taught in academies, and used at every level. And when that happens, we will remember those who dared to go first, who chose their own path when the crowd chose the common one. The chessboard always has room for those who dare to be different.