Four Opening Traps and a Sales Pitch: What Is Being Sold in the Name of Chess Training

From a bedroom in Mymensingh, I was reading an advertisement for a paid video course. The title read 'Game of the Week #746: Xiong vs Liang.' I assumed it was a specific chess analysis. But upon opening it, I found something entirely different. There was not a single move by Xiong or Liang in the entire text. Not a single move after 1.d4 d5. What was there was an advertisement for a training video. This is not a report of an event; it is a product promotion. The advertisement follows a specific structure. First, it creates a problem: White avoids 2.c4, so club players cannot use Slav, Semi-Slav, or Queen's Gambit Accepted theory. Then it instills fear: these lines are 'extremely dangerous' and many players have 'painfully experienced' them. Then the solution: six videos by Grandmaster Valeri Lilov, which contain 'a relevant plan for each opening.' Finally, value stacking: Catalan, Blackmar-Diemer, and Richter-Veresov are added. I have been watching and learning chess for 31 years. A fundamental weakness of this type of advertisement catches my eye. The ad says White avoids 2.c4 because they are 'not ambitious.' But at the same time, it says these lines are 'extremely dangerous.' There is a tension here that the advertisement never resolves. The truth is, the London System or the Colle is objectively not ambitious, but it can be practically dangerous if Black is unprepared. The advertisement does not clarify this distinction, because this is the very basis of its sales pitch. The text mentions four opening systems: Colle (e3/Nf3/Bd3), London (Bf4), Torre (Nf3+Bg5), and Trompowsky (Bg5). These four together actually create a checklist for Black. Because White can choose any one of them. The advertisement is correct on this point, and this is the only workable idea a reader can take away. But beyond this, the advertisement adds Catalan, Blackmar-Diemer, and Richter-Veresov as 'extras.' This is where the problem lies. Catalan is actually an opening with 2.c4. It does avoid Slav or Queen's Gambit Declined theory, but it directly contradicts the advertisement's main thesis, which states that White avoids 2.c4. Blackmar-Diemer (1.d4 d5 2.e4) and Richter-Veresov (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5) are also outside the narrow scope of 'after 1.d4 d5, not 2.c4.' In other words, the scope of the solution does not match the problem the advertisement describes. This is not a factual error, but a looseness in product packaging. There is another major problem. The title says 'Game of the Week #746,' but there is no game inside. This could be due to two reasons: either the original post contained both game analysis and an advertisement, but we only received the ad portion; or the title is just a shell, with the advertisement inserted inside. Either way, it is clear that this text is incomplete, and no conclusion about the quality of the chess analysis can be drawn from it. I started a Bangla blog called 'Chal' in 2026. Back then, I used to analyze every round of the National Championship from PGN files without going to Dhaka. My goal was to convey the story inside the game to the reader. This advertisement reminds me of those days when I was realizing that chess journalism is not just about writing results, but about explaining positions. In 2026, during the Online Olympiad, I used to commentate live from my bedroom in Mymensingh. I learned then that chess can go on without an audience. But this advertisement taught me another lesson: much of what is sold in the name of chess training is actually the business of fear. The biggest weakness of this advertisement is that it provides no evidence. There is no game, no variation, no evaluation data, no video sample, no price. Everything rests on authority and fear. This is not dishonesty; it is a common feature of advertising. But it means there is no verifiable information in this advertisement. As a club player with a rating between 1400 and 2026, I can learn one thing from this advertisement: the four opening systems must be prepared as a set, because White chooses among them. This checklist is workable, whether I buy anything or not. But beyond this, the advertisement leaves an open question: are the videos plan-based or line-based? This is the most important question for value. The advertisement says 'a relevant plan for each opening,' but 'relevant' is a vague word. What is actually needed in systems like London or Colle? Strategic plans, or concrete lines? Without an answer to this question, a buyer cannot make a correct decision. Another question: are the transpositional traps included in the videos? London, Colle, and Torre converge with each other. There are move-order issues with 2.Bf4. That is where unprepared Black players actually lose. The advertisement says nothing about this. When I viewed the 2026 Russia World Cup as 32 chess moves, I understood that structure and planning are the same everywhere. In chess, in football, or in the advertisement of a training video. But the difference is, in football you can see what is happening on the pitch. In a chess training video, you only hear the seller. This advertisement makes me aware of another thing: the market for chess training in Bangladesh is small, and here international course advertisements are often translated or promoted locally. But local players have no way to verify relevance. They only see the title and believe. I am writing this because I believe the responsibility of chess journalism is not just to report games, but also to critique what is sold in the name of training. Especially when the advertisement is part of a long-running series where readers expect analysis. In the end, this advertisement is an index, not an argument. It points to a resource that must be evaluated elsewhere. And most importantly, it reminds us: in chess, you do not sell fear; you sell preparation. Those who buy fear are often deceived. Those who buy preparation know what they are looking for.