A New Front in Chess's Theory Race: The Rising Demand for the London System and 'Anti-Theory' Weapons

In the world of chess, a curious paradox has been unfolding over recent years. On one hand, mainstream opening theory at the 2700+ level is expanding at an unprecedented pace; on the other, so-called 'anti-theory' or 'low-theory' systems are steadily gaining popularity. A recently surfaced training video bundle highlights this very rift, placing the names of top players like Anish Giri and Nodirbek Abdusattorov in its headline — although the material contains no actual game, no moves, and no result involving them. The product, presented by Bulgarian International Master Valeri Lilov, is a six-video series offering Black players preparation against systems White uses to avoid 2.c4 after 1.d4 d5. The list includes the London System, Colle System, Torre Attack, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Trompowsky Attack, Richter-Veresov Opening and the Catalan. The author argues that the theoretical burden of mainstream Queen's Gambit branches — the Slav, Semi-Slav, QGA and Orthodox QGD — has grown so heavy that many players deliberately choose to sidestep them, and therefore Black must learn to punish these 'theory dodgers.' From a technical standpoint, however, the foundation of this claim is thin. First, this is a commercial product page, not a game review. The title mentions Giri vs Abdusattorov, yet the source body contains not a single move, no evaluation, no result, no event name and no date. Under these conditions, no technical claim can be verified. Second, the taxonomy of the promoted systems is itself inconsistent. The Catalan is by definition a 2.c4 opening — 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 — so placing it in a 'systems that avoid 2.c4' category is a logical contradiction. Similarly, the Trompowsky (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg4) and the Richter-Veresov (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg4) arise primarily against 1...Nf6, not against 1...d5, which is the article's stated frame. Only four systems — London, Colle, Torre and Blackmar-Diemer — fit the frame cleanly. More importantly, several of these systems are transpositionally entangled. The Colle (2.Nf3 + 3.e3), Torre (2.Nf3 + 3.Bg5), London (2.Nf3/2.Bf4 + 3.e3) and Richter-Veresov (2.Nc3 + 3.Bg4) can all be met by a single Black setup, such as …e6 and …Bd6, or …b6 and …Nbd7 with …c5 or …c6. A professional repertoire would unify them, whereas a 'one plan per opening' format sells six products where two would suffice. This is the most significant technical shortcoming of the product design. The author's own evaluation is also contradictory. On one hand he calls the approach 'not very ambitious'; on the other he calls it 'extremely dangerous.' These two statements cannot both be true in chess terms. In reality, 'dangerous' here means dangerous to the unprepared opponent, not to a prepared one — a distinction that is never made explicit. Objectively speaking, only the London System in the promoted list is a genuinely competitive weapon at 2700+. Several top-10 players adopt it as a low-theory, high-pressure option. The Trompowsky is used by creative grandmasters as a surprise weapon. The Colle and Torre are primarily club-level systems. The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is considered objectively dubious, and the Richter-Veresov is also of low standing. The Catalan is certainly a mainstream top-level opening, but it does not fit the product's core frame. There is no data on the players either. Giri and Abdusattorov exist only as brand assets in the title. Giri's image as an extremely solid, low-risk player makes him thematically suitable for this kind of 'low-theory' subject — this lends the title some credibility, but the body does not earn that credibility. At the industry level, the significance of this material lies not in opening analysis but in chess's instructional economy. The number '#745' visible in the title indicates a long-running, industrial-scale content series — assuming a weekly cadence, that would imply roughly fourteen years of continuous output. This is the single most informative number in the entire source, because it demonstrates that a durable, repeatable monetisation model exists for titled players below the elite tier. The broader implication is that the inflation of mainstream theory itself creates demand for 'anti-theory' products. Each new theory-heavy opening pushes more players toward low-theory systems. This is a structural tension that is permanently renewable. From a regulatory and risk perspective, the material is nearly neutral. No competitive event, no anti-cheating angle, no FIDE governance issue. The only genuine concern is the accuracy of marketing claims — the title promises a game the source does not contain, and superlatives like 'extremely dangerous' are offered without any quantitative basis. Consumer-level risk is moderate, but sport-level risk is negligible. In the long run, the greatest threat to this category is artificial intelligence. 'A plan against opening X' is the most easily automated content category in chess education, and AI-generated personalised repertoires could restructure this entire market within three to five years. In summary, this is a commercial instructional product wearing the headline of an elite game review. Its news value is close to zero, but as a signal of chess's instructional economy its significance is limited yet real. The key takeaway is that only the London System in the list deserves serious preparation at the top level; the remaining systems are club-level products being presented under a 2700-level title.