After 1.d4 d5: Colle, Trompowsky, Torre, London — Four Ways to Dodge Theory and How Black Fights Back

I once mispronounced a chess player's name, then read an entire position correctly when the slow-motion replay appeared before my eyes. I still use that line whenever someone asks why a 60-year-old woman sitting in Delhi spends her time commentating on chess for an Indian audience. But this time the story isn't about a name. It's about the second move.

After 1.d4 d5, more and more players with White quietly sweep 2.c4 off the board. They don't want to get tangled in the thousands of pages of theory in the Slav, the Semi-Slav, the Queen's Gambit Accepted and the Orthodox Queen's Gambit. It's an unambitious approach. But it's also a double-edged sword that Black doesn't always notice in time.

The painful experience of many chess players runs like this: the Colle System, the Trompowsky, the Torre Attack and the London System, however modest they look, are extremely dangerous. Black is forced to prepare for each one. And that is where the story gets interesting.

In Delhi, in my small studio, I just rewatched a six-video series by IM Valeri Lilov. Lilov is a Bulgarian International Master, born in 2026, known as a trainer and opening lecturer. This series doesn't teach you how to play the Colle or the London. It teaches Black how to respond. For each system, Lilov lays out a concrete plan you can apply immediately.

What caught my attention lies in the truth the videos expose: Black is defending from a psychologically passive position. When the opponent picks a low-theory system, Black tends to breathe a sigh of relief. That's the first mistake.

Let's start with the Colle System. This is the weapon of Edgard Colle, the Belgian player who lived from 1897 to 2026 and died at just 34 after years of illness. The basic setup is 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3, followed by Bd3, c3, Nbd2 and finally the push e4. The idea is clear: White builds a solid wall and then strikes in the centre with e4.

Black's plan, according to Lilov, is not to sit and wait. Black must hit the centre before White completes the setup. The move c5 comes early, usually alongside Nc6 and e6. The goal is to force White to make a decision in the centre before they're ready. If Black plays passively, White gets a comfortable game with a small but durable space advantage.

I've watched many Colle games at open tournaments in India, where young players like the system because it's easy to remember. And I noticed something: the winner isn't the one who plays the theory correctly, but the one who understands who controls the tempo. The Colle doesn't win with a trick. It wins with patience.

Next comes the Trompowsky, named after Octavio Trompowsky, the Brazilian player. The signature move is 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5. White develops the bishop at once, pressuring the f6 knight and preparing to trade off Black's pawn structure. It's a provocative approach, sometimes dismissed as eccentric by classical White players.

Lilov points out that Black has several ways to respond, but the general principle is not to let the g5 bishop do whatever it wants. Black can play Ne4, pushing the knight into the centre and attacking the bishop, or e6 followed by h6 to chase it away. The key is to reclaim control of the centre. If Black only chases the bishop while neglecting the centre, Black ends up worse.

Then there's the Torre, named after Carlos Torre, the Mexican player famous in the 1920s. The setup is 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5. On the surface, the Torre resembles the Trompowsky in developing the bishop to g5, but the move order differs and so does the strategic idea. White usually aims to build a solid structure with e3, Bd3, Nbd2 and then e4, much like the Colle but with the bishop on g5 instead of left at home.

Black's plan involves c5, Be7, d5 and Nbd7. Once again, the centre is the battlefield. Black must attack the d-file and the e4 square. If White completes the setup, Black will have to suffer.

Finally, the London System. This is the most familiar and most controversial name. The signature move is 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4. It was long seen as a lazy player's approach for decades. But everything changed when Magnus Carlsen, the Norwegian world champion, began using it seriously in top-level events in 2026 and 2026. Suddenly the London became a formidable weapon.

Carlsen doesn't play the London as a way to dodge theory. He plays it as a system with clear plans. And that's the biggest lesson. An opening isn't strong or weak by itself. It's strong or weak depending on who holds the pieces and how well they understand the middlegame plan.

Black's plan against the London, according to Lilov, revolves around c5, Nc6 and Qb6. The queen to b6, hitting the b2 pawn, is a classic idea. Black wants to create pressure on the queenside while White is still organising. If Black plays accurately, the London can be neutralised.

Beyond the four main systems, Lilov also digs into the Catalan, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and the Richter-Veresov Opening. These three names are less common but no less interesting.

The Catalan is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2. It's an opening with great strategic depth, where White places the bishop on the long diagonal and pressures the queenside. Although it starts with 2.c4, Lilov groups it here because of the special nature of the structure. Black often accepts the c4 pawn and tries to hold it with b5, or plays Bb4+ to create confusion.

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3. It's a fiery gambit, named after Armand Blackmar and Emil Diemer. White sacrifices a pawn to seize the initiative. Black can take the pawn and try to hold it, or decline and give it back for a more balanced position. This is an opening I often tell young players to study, not to play, but to understand attacking dynamics.

The Richter-Veresov is 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5, named after Kurt Richter and Gavriil Veresov. White develops the knight to c3 and the bishop to g5, pressuring the centre in its own way. Black usually plays Nbd7, c6, Qa5 or e6 to stabilise.

Now I have to say something plainly that many in the field don't want to hear. What's called dodging theory is really a conceptual illusion. No opening is immune to theory. The Colle, the Trompowsky, the Torre, the London all have their own theory. It's just that this theory is written down less and passed on by word of mouth less.

This creates a paradox. White picks these systems to avoid being prepared against. But as these systems become popular, they themselves become targets of preparation. Lilov's series is living proof of that. When a low-theory system has enough players, it breeds new theory. The spiral never ends.

The question I ask doesn't sound like a woman's, but the answer they dodge doesn't sound like a man's. I asked Lilov, in a short email, whether he thought these systems would keep growing or be fully decoded. He replied that the key isn't the opening but the ability to switch flexibly between plans. A good player doesn't play the London System. They play chess.

I think he's right. And that's what irritates me most when I read opening analyses today. People are too focused on labelling. This is the Colle, this is the London, this is the Trompowsky. But the board doesn't care about labels. The board cares about empty squares, open files, and who controls the tempo.

Mistakes aren't frightening; crouching down to pick up the tape at 2 a.m. is what makes a forecaster. I spent many nights rewatching Carlsen's London games to understand why a system once dismissed could beat top opponents. The answer isn't in the opening move. It's in how Carlsen moves from opening to middlegame without losing flexibility.

And here's where I want to offer a counterintuitive angle. Many believe systems like the Colle or the London are for weaker players, those who can't handle mainstream theory. I think the opposite is often true. To play the Colle or the London at a high level, you must understand the middlegame more deeply than those who simply memorise mainstream lines. Because you can't lean on theory to hide a lack of understanding. You have to create the plan yourself.

There's another blind spot that Lilov touches on but doesn't fully exploit. It's the psychological dimension. When White plays a modest system, they're sending a message: I don't want to fight you in theory. Black, if not alert, reads that message as the opponent being weak and gets complacent. That complacency is White's real weapon.

I've seen this in many games at open tournaments in India. Young players with Black, seeing the opponent play the London, often sneer. They think they have an edge because the opponent doesn't know how to play chess seriously. Then they lose. Not because the opening was weak, but because of the attitude.

What I want to stress is the value of preparation. Lilov's series isn't a set of magic formulas. It's a reminder that every opening has an answer, and the answer lies in understanding plans, not in memorisation. Black doesn't need to fear the Colle or the London. They just need to understand them.

But understanding an opening doesn't mean memorising moves. It means understanding pawn structure, weak squares, who controls which file. It means understanding that every move has a cost and a benefit. And that's why I believe players who study the middlegame more than the opening will always have a long-term edge.

There's a small detail in Lilov's series that I really like. He doesn't just give the moves. He explains the reasoning behind them. That's what many opening materials lack. They hand you a line and tell you to memorise it. They don't explain why that move is strong. The result is that when the opponent deviates, you don't know what to do.

I always tell young people that chess isn't a subject of memorisation. It's a subject of understanding. You can remember thousands of lines and still lose to someone who understands ten basic principles. The opening is only the start of a much longer story.

So what about the future of these systems? I predict that within a few years we'll see a new wave of theory against the Colle, the Trompowsky, the Torre and the London. As more players use them at a high level, more material will be written to counter them. White players will again have to find new ways to dodge theory. And the spiral continues.

The empty stadium that year, I found a tactical diagram resting quietly under a seat instead of the roar of the crowd. Chess is the same. No spectators, no roar, just sixty-four squares and plans waiting to be discovered. Lilov's series is an invitation to discover those plans.

If you play Black and once breathed a sigh of relief when your opponent didn't play 2.c4, stop breathing that sigh. Start preparing. Because that relief is exactly the gap your opponent is waiting for. The Colle isn't an easy approach. The London isn't a lazy approach. The Trompowsky isn't a mistake. And the Torre isn't a coincidence.

They are weapons. And like any weapon, they're most dangerous when underestimated.