When White Avoids 2.c4: Colle, Trompowsky, Torre, London and the Counter-Plan for Black

On a Wednesday evening, in a small training room tucked down an alley off Nguyen Van Linh Street in Da Nang, I sat across from a fifteen-year-old student. He had just returned from a regional youth tournament where he had spent two full weeks rebuilding the entire Semi-Slav system. The board opened exactly as he had scripted it: 1.d4 d5. Then his opponent played a move as light as a breath — 2.Nf3. No 2.c4. No Slav. No Semi-Slav. Only a London structure quietly taking shape: Bf4, e3, c3, Nbd2, Bd3, and then Ne5. Thirty moves later the boy sat still, and I stared at the position the way I once stared at a mislabelled videotape.

I once loaded the wrong SHB Da Nang tape, and from that day I knew that football does not forgive carelessness. Eighteen years later, that lesson still holds in chess. The boy had prepared for what he assumed his opponent would play, not for what his opponent actually played. His store of theory became a house with a locked door, and the key lay in a position he had never read a single page of. That was the moment I decided to write this piece: about a quiet trend spreading through Vietnamese chess clubs, and about how the player with the black pieces must prepare all over again.

After 1.d4 d5, more and more players with White are avoiding the enormous body of theory in the Slav, Semi-Slav, Queen's Gambit Accepted and Orthodox Queen's Gambit. They do not play 2.c4. This approach does not push for an advantage on move two, but the painful experience of many players with Black shows that the Colle System, the Trompowsky Attack, the Torre Attack and the London System are nevertheless extremely dangerous. Black has to be prepared for each of these openings, and that is no small burden.

I am not writing this to retell a game or a highlight. I am writing to dissect structure. From the perspective of someone who sat in empty stadiums throughout the COVID season, I learned that a system only reveals its rhythm when the surrounding noise disappears. Chess is the same. Strip away the side stories, strip away the emotion about a "beautiful" or "ambitious" opening, and what remains is a purely technical question: what is White building, and how must Black tear it down?

There is a notable reference for that question. International Master Valeri Lilov, a Bulgarian trainer and player, devoted a series of six instructional videos to answering exactly this problem. In each video he presents a concrete plan for Black against a system White can use to sidestep mainstream theory. Lilov's series does not stop at the four systems above. He also goes deep into the Catalan, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and the Richter-Veresov Opening. Seven structures, seven questions, and a teacher sitting across the board waiting for answers.

What caught my attention was not that Lilov is Bulgarian, nor the number of videos. What matters is how he frames the problem: each system needs its own plan, and no single formula can be applied to all of them. A coach who understands the craft will not tell a student to "just develop and see what happens". He shows that the Colle, the Trompowsky, the Torre and the London, though all born from a desire to avoid theory, have completely different attacking mechanisms. Handling them with a single reflex is to walk into passivity.

I want to start with the operational context, because without understanding why White chooses this path, the player with Black will only ever memorise without understanding.

After 1.d4 d5, the theory of the Slav, Semi-Slav, Queen's Gambit Accepted and Orthodox Queen's Gambit has swollen beyond easy control. A young player who wants to play 2.c4 properly must memorise hundreds of variations, many stretching to move twenty-five or thirty, with lines that differ by a single square. That burden is not only a matter of memory. It is a matter of time, and for most amateur players in Vietnam, time is the scarcest luxury of all.

So a significant group of White players choose otherwise. They do not bet on gaining an advantage in the opening. They bet on steering the game into a familiar structure, where they know every square and every rhythm, and where the opponent must solve problems he has never seen. This is a calculated trade-off. You give up theoretical pressure in exchange for structural certainty.

Many call this approach "unambitious". I find that label one-sided. In chess, ambition is not about how much of the centre you seize on move two, but about whether you have a clear plan for the next twenty moves. White playing the London has a plan. White playing the Colle has a plan. The only question is whether that plan is sharp enough to beat a well-prepared opponent.

And here is the crux for Black: you cannot counter a plan by waiting for it to fall apart. You must have a plan to break the plan. That is the spirit of Valeri Lilov's video series. He does not offer vague advice to "play solidly". He shows, for each system, which squares Black should target, which levers to use, and which move order prevents being swept along by the opponent's rhythm.

There is a line I once wrote and still believe: in the middle of the COVID season, sitting in an empty stadium, I heard the breathing of a tactical system. Opening play in chess breathes in the same way. The Colle breathes slowly and evenly, waiting for one breakthrough. The London breathes calmly, accumulating square by square. The Trompowsky breathes faster, seeking to destabilise at once. Black must hear that rhythm correctly before thinking of a counter-blow.

From here I go into each structure. I will not list variations. I will describe the mechanism, point out the internal weakness, and propose a counter-direction that the player with Black can verify through his own analysis.

The London System and the art of accumulating squares

The London System is the most common structure in this group in Vietnam today, especially in amateur and youth events. White builds an almost fixed frame: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4, followed by e3, c3, Nbd2, Bd3, and often h3 to stop ...Ng4 or ...Nh5. The central idea is to bring the bishop to f4 before locking the pawn chain with e3, thereby avoiding the passivity typical of the Orthodox Queen's Gambit, where the bishop on c4 is blocked after White plays e3.

London's strength lies in its stability. White is almost never surprised by the structure. Every move leads to a familiar position where White can play by plan rather than memory. That is why the system has a high draw rate but also a notable win rate against Black players who are unprepared.

But London has a clear internal weakness: it is slow. White spends three or four moves just building the frame. During that time, if Black acts precisely, White can be pushed onto the defensive before executing the plan.

The standard plan for Black has several axes. The first is to pressure the centre with ...c5, striking directly at the d4 pawn and opening lines for the pieces. The second is to bring the queen to b6, targeting b2 and creating double pressure on the queenside. The third, and most important, is to trade off the bishop on f4. The f4 bishop is the soul of the London. If Black plays ...Bd6 and then ...Bxf4, or uses ...Nh5 to force the bishop away, White loses his chief attacking piece and the position goes flat.

I often tell students that in the London, do not let the f4 bishop survive past move fifteen. If it is still on the board at that stage, White has the position he wants. There are many routes to the trade. Black can play ...Bd6 and wait for the moment, or ...Nh5 to attack the bishop directly, forcing it to choose between trading and retreating to g3 a tempo down.

One technical detail worth remembering: after White plays Bg3, the g7 pawn can be targeted by the idea of Bd3 with Ne5 and Bh7+. This is the classic attacking motif of the London. If Black is not careful, a small breakthrough on the kingside can shatter the whole position. Preventing this motif by controlling e5 and keeping the f6 or g7 bishop flexible is work that must be done early.

Another direction for Black is ...Ne4, placing the knight in the centre and forcing White to decide whether to trade. If White trades, Black can use the pawn structure to claim space. If White declines, the knight on e4 becomes a permanent threat to c3 and f2.

What I want to stress: countering the London is not a miracle move. It is a patient sequence, each move narrowing one of White's gaps. The player with Black must accept playing slightly slowly for the first ten moves in order to hold a better position in the middlegame.

The Colle System and the e4 breakthrough

The Colle System is the older sibling of the London. White plays 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3, followed by Bd3, c3, Nbd2, with the ultimate goal of the e4 breakthrough. Unlike the London, where the bishop goes to f4 early, the Colle keeps the bishop on c1 longer and uses it for a kingside attack, especially in the Colle-Zukertort variation with b3 and Bb2.

The Colle's strength lies in its structural simplicity and clarity of plan. White knows what he wants: push e4, open the centre, then attack. Its weakness is that the plan is easy to read. If Black recognises the e4 breakthrough and prevents it, the Colle loses momentum and becomes a dull, balanced position.

The plan for Black centres on controlling the e4 square and the centre. The main axis is ...c5, striking at d4 and forcing White to decide about the pawn structure. When White plays dxc5, Black can recapture with ...Bxc5 or ...Nxc5, keeping flexibility. When White keeps d4, Black can play ...cxd4 and then ...e5, creating a solid centre that White struggles to break.

Another important reflex is ...dxe4. If White pushes e4, Black can trade the pawn there and then play ...e5, halting the attack and opening the c8 bishop's path. In many games, that ...e5 is exactly what turns the Colle from a weapon into a balanced position.

I have seen many games at youth events in Da Nang where White plays the Colle mechanically, pushing e4 before it is ripe, and gets countered by ...dxe4 with ...e5. White loses the centre, loses the initiative, and often loses within thirty moves. Notably, White does not lose because he is weak, but because he executed the right plan at the wrong moment.

Here a lesson appears that I always remind students of: a tape that is wrong from the very start is the most expensive lesson, because the eye always needs verification. In the Colle, the timing of e4 is not decided by books but by the position. Black must create the conditions that make e4 a bad move, rather than merely waiting for it.

The Trompowsky Attack and the battle for the bishop pair

The Trompowsky Attack begins with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5. This is a system with a completely different philosophy. White does not build slowly. White attacks the f6 knight at once, forcing Black to decide the pawn structure earlier than planned and, in many cases, threatening to trade bishop for knight to weaken Black's structure.

The Trompowsky is named after the Brazilian player Octavio Trompowsky, believed to have used it in the 1930s. Its appeal is that it forces Black to choose between several good pawn structures, each leading to a different type of position. For a White player who does not want to study theory, this is the most effective way to sidestep the books.

The plan for Black starts with not fearing the trade. If White plays Bxf6, Black usually replies ...exf6 or ...gxf6. The ...exf6 recapture opens the kingside and gives Black the bishop pair, reasonable compensation for a weakened pawn structure. The ...gxf6 recapture preserves the central structure but weakens the kingside and creates an open g-file.

In practice, many coaches advise Black to accept the trade and use the bishop pair in a slow game. This is a sound approach, because in structures where White has spent a piece to damage the structure, keeping the bishop pair often yields a long-term advantage.

Another option, considered stronger, is 2...Ne4. Black pushes the knight into the centre immediately, turning the game into a position where Black is far from passive. This move asks White directly: trade or keep. If White trades, Black has a fine pawn structure and space. If White keeps, Black has claimed the centre and will continue with ...d5, ...c5, ...Nc6.

I want to add a note on the psychology of the Trompowsky. White choosing this system usually wants to create instability, forcing Black to think from move two. A Black player swept up in that psychology will easily play petty defensive moves and ruin his own position. The correct reaction is to stay calm, accept the structure White wants, and trust in the long-term value of the bishop pair or the central space.

The Torre Attack and the hybrid structure

The Torre Attack begins with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5. In essence it is a version of the Trompowsky with the knight already on f3. The system is named after the Mexican player Carlos Torre Repetto, who used it in the 1920s. The difference from the Trompowsky is that the f3 knight is already developed, so White can transpose flexibly into many structures, from the Queen's Indian to the Catalan.

This flexibility is both strength and weakness. White has many choices, but easily drifts into a planless position without a clear idea. For Black, the opportunity lies in imposing a specific structure before White can choose.

The plan for Black in the Torre Attack includes playing ...h6 early to question the g5 bishop, forcing it to choose between trading and retreating. Once the bishop leaves, Black can complete development with ...Be7, ...d5, ...0-0, and counter in the centre with ...c5 or ...Ne4.

Another direction is ...b6 with ...Bb7, building a Queen's Indian-style position with the bishop on the long diagonal. This requires Black to understand the pawn structure, but yields a solid, hard-to-attack position.

What I always stress to students facing the Torre Attack: do not let the g5 bishop linger. It is the source of all trouble, from the trade threat to control of the e7 and c7 squares. Expelling it early with ...h6 or ...Be7 is priority number one.

The Catalan and the return of the theory burden

The Catalan is a special case in this list. White plays 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2, meaning White still plays 2.c4 but sidesteps Slav and Semi-Slav theory by choosing a Catalan structure with the bishop on the long diagonal. This is a strategically deep system, not merely a way to avoid the books.

The Catalan is linked to the tournament in Barcelona in 2026, where it was used and left its mark. Unlike the London or the Colle, the Catalan demands that both sides understand theory. White imposes long-term pressure on Black's queenside through the g2 bishop, often targeting the b7 and d5 pawns. Black must decide whether to hold or release the c4 pawn, and each choice leads to a completely different type of position.

The plan for Black splits into two main branches. The first accepts the pawn release with ...dxc4, then plays ...a6 and ...b5 to hold the pawn, or plays ...Bb4+ to regain a tempo. This is the Open Catalan, demanding precise knowledge of many variations. The second plays ...Be7, ...0-0, ...c6, keeping a solid structure and accepting a slower position. This is the Closed Catalan, suited to a Black player who wants to avoid theoretical trouble.

For most amateur players, I recommend the Closed branch. It demands less memorisation, carries less risk, and still yields a good position. The key is that Black must control the d5 square and not allow White to push e4 under favourable conditions.

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and the wager of a pawn

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is the complete opposite of the London and the Colle. White plays 1.d4 d5 2.e4, sacrificing a pawn for the initiative and open lines. The system is linked to the names of Armand Edward Blackmar, who studied it from the 1880s, and Emil Joseph Diemer, the German player who developed it in the twentieth century.

The Blackmar-Diemer is a wager. White trades a pawn for tempo and open lines. If Black plays precisely, White can lose outright. If Black plays hastily, White can crush the opponent within twenty moves. This is a system where defensive technique decides everything.

The plan for Black starts with accepting or declining the wager. If accepting with ...dxe4, Black must be ready to give the pawn back at the right moment. The classic defensive strategy is to play ...e5 or ...e6 at the right time to return the pawn, complete development, and enter an endgame with a more stable position. Trying to keep the pawn usually leads to defeat, because White has enough space and tempo to attack.

If declining with ...e6 or ...Bf5, Black shifts to another structure, usually a French or Caro-Kann type, and avoids all of White's attacking variations. This is the safer route for a Black player who does not want a direct confrontation.

I have analysed many Blackmar-Diemer games at amateur events and noticed a recurring pattern: Black loses not because the position is bad, but because he tries to keep the pawn for too long. When you accept returning the pawn, the position opens up and your technique has room to work. When you cling to it, you lock yourself into a trap White set from move two.

The Richter-Veresov and a hybrid version of the closed opening

The Richter-Veresov Opening begins with 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5. The system is linked to Kurt Richter, the German player, and Gavriil Veresov, the Soviet player, who developed it in the twentieth century. This is a closed opening with an attacking philosophy, where White uses the g5 bishop and the c3 knight to create early pressure on Black's structure.

What is special about the Richter-Veresov is that White often does not rush e4. White builds a solid structure, sometimes playing f3 to reinforce the centre, and only then carries out attacking plans. This is a system close to modern style, where White prioritises flexibility and the ability to transpose.

The plan for Black centres on questioning the g5 bishop with ...h6, and completing development with ...e6, ...Be7, ...0-0. Another direction is ...Bf5, placing the bishop on a strong diagonal and preparing ...e6 and ...c6. In many lines, Black can play ...c5 early to attack the centre and claim space.

The Richter-Veresov is less common in Vietnam than the London or the Colle, but it appears often enough in international events that a serious Black player must know it. It is a textbook example of how a theory-avoiding system can still demand serious preparation from Black.

The blind spot: when "unambitious" becomes a weapon

At this point I want to step away from the board for a moment and talk about how we view this group of openings.

Calling them "unambitious" is one of the most dangerous preconceptions in amateur chess. It makes the player with Black complacent, and that complacency is fertile ground for defeat.

Think again. White does not play the London because White lacks ambition. White plays the London because White understands that ambition from move two can be punished by an opponent with better theoretical knowledge. This is a calculated strategic choice, not a surrender. And once you dismiss that choice, you have placed yourself in a passive position.

There is a subtler blind spot. Many Black players, facing this group of systems, tend to play too forcefully in order to "punish" White. They push pawns, open files, attack hastily, and weaken their own position. This is a natural psychological reaction: you feel the opponent does not "deserve" to equalise, so you want to prove otherwise. But chess does not reward emotion. It rewards precision.

I once wrote that the transfer market is like an endgame: whoever reads the roles first breathes easy. Opening play is the same. Whoever reads the role of each piece first controls the position. White has read his role: build the frame, accumulate, wait for the moment. If Black does not read his own role, Black will play without direction, and that is where defeat begins.

So what is Black's role in these systems? I believe it has three parts. First, accept a slightly slow position in the early stage and do not panic about it. Second, identify precisely the internal weakness of the system White is using and attack it patiently. Third, trust middlegame technique over a miraculous counter-blow.

This sounds simple, but in reality it demands a major shift in thinking. Most Black players are taught that they must gain an advantage from the opening, that a balanced opening is a theoretical failure. That notion is wrong. In modern chess, a balanced opening is normal, and the game is decided in the middlegame and endgame.

There is one more aspect I want to mention, concerning the Vietnamese chess community. Valeri Lilov's video series shows one thing: worldwide, the need to prepare against theory-avoiding systems is large enough for a coach to devote six videos to it. In Vietnam, that need exists, but Vietnamese-language material is still thin. This is a gap the community must fill, not by translating foreign books, but by analysing the very games being played in domestic tournaments.

I believe an empty pitch turns out to be the most honest mirror of modern football. For chess, the empty analysis room is the same. It is there, when the noise of the crowd and public opinion is gone, that one sees the true structure of an opening. And it is there that the player with Black learns he cannot win by inspiration, only by preparation.

Verifying in the next game

I am not writing this to hand over a fixed formula. Chess does not run on formulas. I am writing to propose a framework of thought, and that framework must be verified in each concrete game.

For the Black player reading this, I suggest a simple process. First, identify which of the seven groups above appears most often in your games. For most amateur players in Vietnam, it will be the London and the Colle. Then, devote a full week to each system, not to memorise variations, but to understand the mechanism and find the internal weakness. Finally, test the plan in practice games, record the results, and adjust based on real data.

This process is slow. It does not feel as exciting as memorising a beautiful combination. But it is the only route for the player with Black to escape passivity against the theory-avoiding group of openings.

And when you have prepared, when you have understood the breathing of each system, the remaining question is not "how do I beat the London". The remaining question is: do you have enough patience to accept a balanced position for the first fifteen moves, before turning that patience into an advantage in the middlegame?

The fifteen-year-old in Da Nang answered that question by sitting down, reopening every game he had lost to these systems, and beginning to build a plan of his own. Three months later, he met his old opponent again. The game still opened with 1.d4 d5, and there was still 2.Nf3. But this time he did not sit still. He had heard the breathing of the system before his opponent could build it.