Against 1.d4 d5 Without 2.c4: A Plan Map for Black vs the Colle, London, Trompowsky, Torre, Catalan, Blackmar-Diemer and Richter-Veresov

Black's clock showed 1 hour 12 minutes when the game reached move five. White, a nineteen-year-old player from central Vietnam, had just placed a bishop on f4. Nobody in that small hall in Da Nang that afternoon thought the move worth discussing. The player handling Black — an international master with twenty years at the board — did not move his hand. He was not calculating. He was searching his memory for what he had prepared for this position, and finding less and less.

White was not playing the Slav. White was not playing the Orthodox Queen's Gambit. White was not pushing the c-pawn on move two. White was simply building a familiar frame — pawn to e3, bishop to d3, knight from b1 to d2 — and then waiting for Black to make his own life difficult. Forty minutes later, Black played a reasonable move with no plan behind it. Fifteen moves after that, he lost.

I tell this game not because of the result. I tell it because it repeats too often now, at every level, from training sessions at the Da Nang chess club to the women's sections of open internationals. That day I was sitting in the stands, with no idea I would later walk onto the field through words. Now, every time I see a young player push a bishop to f4 while Black is still trying to remember a line, I recognise the exact moment chess has overlooked for a century.

Why White abandons the main road

After 1.d4 d5, the move 2.c4 opens four large doors: the Queen's Gambit Accepted (2...dxc4), the Slav (2...c6), the Semi-Slav (2...c6 followed by ...Nf6 and ...e6) and the Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined (2...e6). Each door holds hundreds of named lines, many mined twenty-five layers deep into collective memory: Meran, Botvinnik, Moscow, Tartakower, Lasker, Capablanca, Cambridge Springs. For a strong amateur, or a young player without an analysis team, learning that mass is a wager on time — and time is more expensive than rating.

So a large group of White players take another road. They do not push c4. They play closed systems, where the position is defined by pawn structure rather than memory. That list is short, and it almost exactly matches what Bulgarian coach and international master Valeri Lilov chose to analyse in his six-part instructional series for Black: the Colle System, the Trompowsky, the Torre Attack, the London System, the Catalan, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and the Richter-Veresov Opening.

What matters is how Lilov divides the material. He does not build a line library. For each system he demonstrates one relevant plan for Black. That is the right pedagogical choice, and it is the opposite of what most coaching material on the market does.

One frame, seven names

Based on my experience following games across many women's events, from national qualifiers to open international sections, I believe people miscount the size of Black's problem. It sounds like seven openings. In practice there is one frame.

The Colle, the London, the Torre and the Richter-Veresov share the same skeleton: White builds bishop to d3, pawn to e3, knight from b1 to d2, then seeks a break with e4 or a knight jump to e5. The Trompowsky is a reordered branch of the same structure, differing only in that the bishop goes to g5 before its final destination is decided. The Catalan is the branch with c4, but it too revolves around the d5 — e4 — c5 axis. The Blackmar-Diemer is the violent branch, trading structure for speed, yet it still uses the same key squares.

Black does not need seven files. Black needs one structural file, then adjusts the move order. Very little published material says this plainly, and it explains why a player who memorises seven plans still loses while a player who understands one structure survives all seven.

The Colle: the e4 break and the dark-squared bishop trap

The Colle System is named after Edgard Colle, the Belgian master who codified it in the 1920s and died in 2026 at thirty-four. The expanded version, with b3 and bishop to b2, carries Johannes Zukertort's name, while George Koltanowski popularised it in America. The main spine: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.O-O O-O.

White will push e4. Black must decide before that move arrives. Three usable answers: capture on e4 and reoccupy the square with a knight, push ...c4 to clamp the centre, or prepare ...e5 once d5 is sufficiently controlled by knight and bishop. The bad answer is waiting.

The structural weakness of the Colle lies with the dark-squared bishop. It sits behind the d4 — e3 — c3 pawn chain and may never see daylight. So Black's most natural plan is to trade dark-squared bishops, usually via ...Bd6 and waiting for White to capture, or by swinging the bishop to f4 after White has played e4 and the pawn has been exchanged. Once the dark-squared bishops leave, the position tilts toward the better structure, which is Black's.

One practical detail: if White pushes e5 and jumps a knight to e5, Black should not panic. The d5 square becomes weak, but Black can use that very square as a base for bishop and knight while opening the e-file against the bishop on d3. In many women's games I have followed, Black's defeats against the Colle rarely come from a wrong move. They come from playing too passively in the first ten moves, letting White complete the frame for free.

The London: a system that slept and woke up

The London System is the most interesting of the seven, because its trajectory resembles a career. It appeared in English practice in the nineteenth century, took its name from London tournaments in the 1920s, then all but vanished from top-level play for decades. From the 2010s it returned strongly, associated with Magnus Carlsen, with Vladimir Kramnik in certain periods, and especially with Baadur Jobava, who developed the branch with knight to c3 and a later e4.

The empty corridor of 2026 taught me that the field never dies, it only knows how to wait. The London System is the clearest proof. When events were postponed and chess moved to screens, the system exploded at every level, and the same happened in Vietnam, where online tournaments multiplied faster than players could prepare.

Positionally: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4, or 2.Bf4 at once. White will play e3, Bd3, Nbd2, c3, h3, O-O, then look for Ne5 and the f4 push. Black's plan has four parts, and the order matters more than the content: push ...c5 before White reinforces d4; bring the knight to c6 and the queen to b6 to hit b2 and d4; develop the light-squared bishop outside the pawn chain before ...e6, usually with ...Bf5 or ...Bg4; and find a way to trade the f4 bishop, either with ...Bd6 or with ...Nh5.

The move ...Nh5 is the most underrated tool in this entire file. It forces the f4 bishop to choose: retreat to g3 and face ...Bd6 next, or capture on f6 and open the g-file for Black. Both are better than letting that bishop live quietly on f4 for the whole game.

The Trompowsky: when the bishop moves before its fate

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5. The opening is named after Octavio Trompowsky, a Brazilian player active from the 1930s, and turned into a dangerous weapon by Julian Hodgson, an English grandmaster, in the 1980s and 1990s.

White has two intentions. The first is to trade on f6 and damage Black's pawn structure. The second is to keep the bishop, retreat it to h4, and build a big centre with c4 and e4. Black's main answer is ...Ne4, putting the knight in the centre immediately and forcing White to commit.

If White trades on f6, Black must choose the recapture. Taking with the g-pawn opens the g-file and gives Black a clear plan: ...e5, ...f5, queen to e7, rook to g8. Taking with the e-pawn is more solid but exposes the e-file and makes the e-pawn functionally isolated. Either is fine, provided Black understands what is being traded. The common mistake is recapturing by habit and only realising ten moves later that the resulting pawn structure does not fit the plan being played.

Beyond ...Ne4, Black has two further plan groups: ...d5 with ...c5 and ...Qb6, or ...h6 and ...g5 to chase the bishop. The second is risky but effective when White has committed to keeping the bishop at all costs, because then every bishop-chasing move is free time for Black.

The Torre: the ghost of Bg5

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5. The opening is named after Carlos Torre Repetto, the Mexican grandmaster famous for his win over Emanuel Lasker in Moscow in 2026. Torre himself did not build the system; the name came later, from his use of positions with a bishop on g5.

The Torre Attack differs from the Trompowsky in that White has already placed the knight on f3, so there is no concern about the knight being pushed back. White will play e3, Nbd2, Bd3, c3, O-O, then choose between e4 and Ne5. The Bxf6 idea remains constant, and the doubled f-pawns remain Black's price of admission.

Black's plan is nearly identical to the anti-Trompowsky plan, differing only in tempo: ...d5, ...Be7, ...Nbd7, ...O-O, ...c5, ...Qb6. The move ...h6 is always useful because it forces the bishop to decide. One point to note: if White has not yet played Bd3, Black can consider ...Ne4 immediately, since e4 is not controlled by a bishop on d3.

In many women's games I have followed, the Torre Attack appears as the choice of players who want to avoid theory but do not want the London. Its drawback is that the g5 bishop is easy to chase; its advantage is that White keeps the option of switching to a classical structure if Black answers imprecisely.

The Catalan: a game of squares

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2. The Catalan takes its name from the Barcelona tournament of 2026 and became a reliable weapon for several world champions, including Vladimir Kramnik.

It is the only system on this list with a c4 pawn, so it does not entirely avoid theory. What it avoids are the violent lines of the Slav and Semi-Slav. White trades them for a positional game in which the g2 bishop rakes the long diagonal and the c4 pawn pressures d5.

Black has two broad choices. The open branch: ...dxc4, then ...a6, ...b5, ...Bb7 to hold the pawn, or returning the pawn for time. The closed branch: ...Be7, ...O-O, ...Nbd7, ...b6, ...Bb7, ...Rc8, ...c5, ...Qe7. Both branches circle the same question: who controls d5, and who plays ...c5 or e4 first.

For White, the standard plan is b3 to challenge the c4 pawn and open the b2 bishop. For Black, the counter-plan is ...c5 at the right moment, usually after completing development, and never allowing the d4 pawn to advance to d5 under any circumstances.

The Blackmar-Diemer: the wager of speed

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3. The gambit is named after Armand Blackmar, an American player of the nineteenth century, and Emil Diemer, the German who pursued it for a lifetime.

This is the only system in which White accepts the loss of a pawn from the opening to buy rapid development and an open f-file. For Black, the greatest temptation is to keep the pawn. That temptation usually leads to defeat. The right plan is to return the pawn at the correct moment, after completing development and neutralising the pressure.

Three useful defensive structures: ...e6 with ...Be7 and ...O-O, ...c5 hitting d4 at once, and ...g6 with the bishop to g7. The move ...Bg4 is always useful to pin the f3 knight. What Black must remember is that White has already spent a pawn to buy time, so Black must not spend time to keep a pawn.

The Richter-Veresov: the Trompowsky's forgotten sibling

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5. The opening is named after Kurt Richter, a German player, and Sergei Veresov, a Soviet player. It is a close relative of the Trompowsky, differing in that the knight goes to c3 before the bishop goes to g5.

White will trade on f6, then play e3, Bd3, Nf3, O-O and look for e4. Black's plan includes ...Nbd7, ...h6, ...e6, ...Be7, ...O-O, ...c5 and ...Qa5 in certain lines. The move ...Ne4 remains the central tool, just as in the Trompowsky.

The key difference lies in White's c3 knight: it does not control e4, so Black has more chances to occupy that square with a knight. On the other hand, the c3 knight supports a future e4 and d5 push, so Black must not let White complete the structure comfortably.

Commercial value against playing value

Tactics resemble people: you have to know who you are before you try to become someone else. This is what I think about when I watch how the chess coaching market operates. Lilov's six videos are sold as a solution set for seven openings. Commercial logic rewards coverage: more openings, more perceived value. The logic of the board rewards the opposite: fewer structures, more depth.

There is another blind spot. Systems like the Colle or the London are routinely called the chess of amateurs, of the lazy, of the unambitious. That phrasing sounds familiar to anyone who has followed women's sport. It is exactly how people once spoke about women's football: good enough to play, not serious enough to analyse. In truth, at the highest level, women players such as Judit Polgar, Hou Yifan, Ju Wenjun and Alexandra Kosteniuk have never treated the use of a system as a sign of low ambition. They play what works, and that is precisely the only standard worth having.

In Vietnam, where women players such as Pham Le Thao Nguyen and Nguyen Thi Mai Hung have represented the country internationally for years, preparing against these systems is far more practical than collecting lines. A young Vietnamese player today meets the London System in online events far more often than the Semi-Slav Meran in classical ones. Preparing by frequency of encounter, not by an opening's reputation, is the simple principle most material ignores.

Signing a contract is a matter of black and white on paper, but staying is a matter of the heart. Black can learn seven plans and forget all seven. Black can also learn one structure and stay with it for a career. I have seen both kinds of player, and I know which kind is still standing after thirty.

A thought to carry away

White's refusal to enter the Slav is not fear. White chooses another road to ask Black a harder question: how well do you understand your position when there is no line left to remember? The seven systems in Lilov's series are really seven versions of that same question. Whoever can answer it will not need another video. And perhaps the question worth asking Vietnam's next generation is not how many openings to learn, but how many structures to stay with until they are understood in the bones.