Six Videos Against London, Colle and Trompowsky: What IM Valeri Lilov Sells to Club Players

I remember an autumn evening in 2026 at an amateur chess tournament in Da Nang. There was nothing historic about the game: a math teacher playing White, arranging his pieces in the exact twelve moves I had seen hundreds of times — Nf3, Bf4, e3, Bd3, Nbd2, then short castling. His opponent, a younger player rated nearly two hundred points higher, frowned after move fifteen. By move twenty-eight, he stood up, walked outside, came back, and lost within four more moves.

The London System is not the strongest opening. It is the most annoying opening for anyone unprepared for it. And after replaying that game three times, I asked myself: how many Black players around the world face this exact situation every week, with no one telling them what to do?

The answer, in one small corner of the chess market, is IM Valeri Lilov.

Late last month, the Bulgarian trainer released episode twenty-one of his video series "Power of Initiative." The content consists of six videos outlining response plans for Black against seven opening systems that White uses to dodge mainstream theory: the Colle System, Trompowsky Attack, Torre Attack, London System, Catalan Opening, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and Richter-Veresov Opening.

The technical starting point rests on an accurate observation: after 1.d4 d5, more and more White players refuse to play 2.c4. They do not want to enter the dense theoretical thickets of the Slav, Semi-Slav, Queen's Gambit Accepted, or Orthodox Queen's Gambit — systems that can cost a club player hundreds of hours of study and still punish them by move fifteen. Instead, they choose systems that are "cheap" in theory but expensive in discomfort: a few modest moves, a good structure, and a clear middlegame plan.

That is the context Lilov targets. In each video, he presents a practical plan for Black — not fifteen-move novelties, but strategic ideas: controlling the e4 or e5 square, choosing when to push c6 or e6, accepting a slightly worse structure in exchange for piece activity.

But here is a notable detail in how the product is built.

Three of the seven systems — Colle, Trompowsky, Torre — belong to the "anti-Slav" family. These are systems where White deliberately avoids theoretical clashes in the center. The Colle System is a setup with Nf3, e3, Bd3 and castling: White does not occupy the center with pawns but with pieces, waiting for the opponent to commit a structural error. The Trompowsky Attack begins with 1.d4 followed by Bg5, aiming to disrupt Black's pawn structure before Black can stabilize. The Torre Attack follows a similar path with Nf3, Bg5, e3.

All three share one feature: they do not demand much memorization from the player, but they demand that the opponent understand pawn structure. If Black does not know when to push c5, where to castle, or how to trade the dark-squared bishop, White will get a comfortable middlegame with little risk.

I thought I had been exiled from the 64-square board, but the board opened a path deeper into myself. Every game is a dialogue, and the opponent is sometimes just the person sitting across to listen.

The London System sits at the center of this story. This is an opening whose stability has been confused with danger. A London player does not try to win through theory; they let the opponent surrender the position on their own. At club level, this works surprisingly well — not because London is strong, but because most Black players have no clear counterplan.

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and Richter-Veresov Opening are more interesting cases. Blackmar-Diemer sacrifices a pawn early — 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 — to open the center with speed. Richter-Veresov is a rare system with Nf3, Nc3, d4, Bg5. Both are "gambling" choices White uses when unwilling to play positional chess.

The Catalan Opening is different. This is a closed system with d4, c4 and Bg2 — long-term positional pressure on the queenside. The Catalan genuinely has strategic depth, not a shortcut around theory.

What stands out is that these seven systems are not of the same type. Three are theory-avoidance systems, one is a serious positional opening, two are attacking gambits, and one is among the most solid systems in chess. Packing them into six videos means each system gets roughly forty-five minutes — enough to sketch a plan, not enough to go deep.

And this is where I must speak plainly about the product's marketing.

The course description labels these systems "extremely dangerous." Based on my experience tracking club games, that is salesman's language, not analyst's language. The London System is not dangerous; it is solid. The Colle System is not dangerous; it is somewhat passive if Black knows how to neutralize it. The Trompowsky can cause trouble, but only against someone who has never seen it. Calling them "extremely dangerous" manufactures fear of missing out — a familiar commercial tactic in the chess content market.

A more telling detail lies in the title. The product name mentions the Benko Gambit, but the Benko Gambit does not appear in the list of seven systems. Benko begins with 1.d4 Nf6, not 1.d4 d5 — it belongs to an entirely different branch. Including Benko in the title is most likely an SEO decision: attracting people searching for the popular Benko system, then leading them to a broader product. That is a legitimate marketing tactic, but buyers should know what they are buying.

There is another trust gap. The promotional article provides no verifiable information about Valeri Lilov — no official Elo, no student results, no platform ratings, no sample content. The "Bulgarian trainer" label is all the reader has. For an opening-instruction product, the instructor's credibility matters as much as the content — and here, credibility is unproven.

This does not mean the product is worthless. At the club level of 1400 to 2026, an IM-titled instructor is usually sufficient to convey basic strategic plans. The problem lies in expectations: buyers must understand this is introductory material, not preparation for an elite tournament.

There is one point on which both sides are right. The demand for content against the London, Colle and Torre is real. Many Black players struggle every week with exactly these positions without knowing where to start. That market does not need more theory; it needs clear plans. But the market is also saturated: YouTube, Lichess and countless free channels have long offered similar content. The differentiating value of a paid course lies in structure, not in information.

I remember the first time I realized this. In 2026, I sat in a press room in Russia and heard a coach say he spent seventy percent of his preparation time on openings his opponent might play, and only thirty percent on openings he wanted to play. That is the nature of modern chess: you do not choose your opening; your opponent chooses it for you.

For a Black player after 1.d4 d5, this is even truer. You do not control whether White plays 2.c4. You only control your own level of preparation.

Lilov's six videos do not solve that problem. No product does. But they point to something worth considering: in chess, your opponent's discomfort usually begins with your own lack of preparation.

Some positions do not need a win to nurture a memory. And if there is one question worth taking home after watching the series, it is this: when your opponent steps into their familiar position, are you stepping into yours?