The Chess Coaching Market: A Strategic Antidote to System Openings

System openings are like a comfortable room. On the chess board, when White plays 1.d4, some players' hands automatically drift towards the London System, Colle System, or Torre Attack. These provide an organised, safe structure without drowning in the vast ocean of main-line theory. But for Black, these 'comfortable rooms' can create nightmare after nightmare. Recently, a series of six videos by International Master Valeri Lilov has claimed to turn these nightmares into opportunities for Black. The promotional language describes these systems as 'extremely dangerous' and cites the 'painful experience' of many players. The same article also includes the comment that chess is 'massively undervalued', which is actually unrelated to the main content of the lesson. This very incongruity tells us how mature, yet how chaotic, the chess training market has become. From my own childhood experience of learning chess, I can say that system openings are not actually opportunistic comfort plays—they are a conscious decision. A player who lacks the patience or time to memorise main-line theory chooses London or Colle. At club level (1500–2200), these openings are truly fearsome, because the opponent has not prepared beforehand. But at elite level, the picture is different. There, the London System is now a respected weapon, used by top-level players. The Colle, Torre, or Blackmar-Diemer Gambit are essentially club-level or surprise weapons. The value of Lilov's video series lies precisely here—it is not a new discovery of elite theory, but a practical antidote for club players. A technical analysis reveals that the classification of system openings is also quite imprecise. Colle, London, and Torre usually arise after 1.d4 d5, when White does not want to play 2.c4. On the other hand, Trompowsky, Richter-Veresov, and Catalan typically arise after 1.d4 Nf6. Promoting them as one family is a simplification. Nevertheless, having a unified antidote is important for Black, because at club level opponents often play these systems without special preparation. So if Black knows a specific plan, he gains a psychological advantage. Lilov's videos claim to provide that plan—a short roadmap for each opening. Based on my years of watching chess competitions, the biggest risk of such a product is that it encourages a culture of pattern memorisation. A beginner might think that just watching six videos guarantees victory against the London System. The reality is that every position on the chess board is different, and if the opponent suddenly switches to main lines, the memorised lines become useless. True improvement requires a deep understanding of playing principles, which no video series alone can provide. However, for club players, such a 'practical antidote' can be a starting point. The quote used in the title of this article—'chess is massively undervalued'—is actually not connected to its main content. It was probably taken from an interview with a patron or investor and later appended to the product promotion. Such mismatches are a major problem in chess media. Readers get confused, and the quality of analysis drops. The training materials market in the chess industry is now ballooning. Chessable, Chess.com, and independent coaches are creating various courses. Some are truly quality, while many are recycled or exaggerated. In the context of Bangladesh, this discussion is even more significant. The infrastructure for chess training in our country is limited. The federation's annual grant is only around 11 lakh Taka—less than the bat sponsorship of a cricket franchise player. In this situation, reliance on online courses or foreign coaches' videos is increasing. But our young players have fewer opportunities to learn main-line theory. As a result, they easily fall into the trap of system openings, and are then prompted to buy the antidote product. This cycle actually indicates the weakness of our domestic training system. When I was teaching my children chess, I noticed that when they first learn the London System, they are fascinated—because it is easy, clean. But when the opponent comes with good preparation, they get frustrated. Then I remember my grandfather—who was a club player in Purana Paltan—saying, 'Chess is a game of patience, not memorisation.' This saying is even more relevant in today's coaching market context. Lilov's antidote against system openings may work at club level. But for long-term improvement, a player needs acquaintance with main-line theory, engine analysis, and the habit of analysing their own games. No one becomes a Grandmaster by watching six videos. However, as a correct guide, it can be a beginning. The question is, does this method of IM Lilov actually simplify the depth of chess, or teach practical wisdom? The answer depends on the student's mindset. In my view, the true value of learning chess is to develop the ability to think independently on the board. No antidote package can do that if the student does not understand their own game. For club players, Lilov's course can be a helpful tool, but it is never a substitute for main-line theory. In this era of rapid expansion of technology and commerce in the chess world, we must be careful not to push genuine learning to the margins.