Anti-Dutch 2 Bg5"

I'm a fan of the simple 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.Nbd2 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.e4

Confused a little by your "...here on ICC" comment.

In what line? 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6

What do you consider the critical line?

 Don't be confused.

He just cut and pasted the whole awkward message straight out of an ICC newsletter.

http://www.chessclub.com/mailing/2011/02c/news.html

Weird.

I had a brief "affair" with the Dutch and didnt do badly with it in tournament play. However, during this time I was also visiting an IM friend of mine and we would play blitz non-stop for 3 to 5 hours every week. He was a 1 d4 player and he was mangling my Dutch so bad in blitz that I completely gave it up ! Its true that the anti-Dutch systems are a real pain and a Dutch player must know them well if he wants to stick with the Dutch. Ozzie, I like your "system" and may try it myself soon ! 

It was recommended by a GM to me as an easy way to play against the Dutch, almost dismissively.

 I think a lot of people fall out of love with the Dutch for the same reason.

Just like the Sicilian, if you're going to play the Dutch, you're going to face anti-systems almost as (if not more) often than you play anything resembling a mainline.

UNlike the Sicilian, seemingly all the anti-Dutch lines are actually really difficult for black to face.

I'd like to believe in simple refutations to the Staunton gambit, or early Nh3...but instead find myself battling uphill against them.

I've found some level of happiness approaching it through a  1...e6 move order.  Of course, my days of Leningrading are over.  But I'm finding smoother sailing these days.

 I've seen Simon Williams play that...I guess you'd call it "Torre" line against the Dutch.  And when the Classical Dutch's biggest advocate plays a particular anti- as white, you've got to stand up and take notice.

Curious how you'd handle 4...d5 instead of ...Be7?  My inclination would be to prefer stonewall waters against that move order, since with the bishop developed to g5, d6 looks safe and active for black's pointy-headed soldier.

But admittedly, I haven't thought this through yet.  Might post some thoughts later, but interested in your take.

A friend of mine on here, Burnelr, and I are exploring the 2...h6 lines for the first time.  Here is one of the main lines we are looking into at the moment:

Like many Sicilian lines, these lines should be tried before they are buyed. 

I guess I am in agreeance that 2. Bg5 is a great line for White to play against 1. d4, on one condition - he must know his stuff.  It put Black, of all systems (save maybe the Staunton) on his toes immediately, and sets the tone for a different opening scheme.  There are plenty of other options we didn't discuss, such as Steinitz' 2...c6!? - he was a crazy man :-)

One thing not mentioned is that most dutch players use the move order 1...e6. Avoiding the Bg5 line and inviting a french( similar to the Caro-kann, Slav synergy) that many players use as an opening repertoire

I don't know about "most."  I think it's relevant to look into Bg5 lines as a d4 player rather than rely on seeing mostly an ...e6 move order.

I think most Dutchies are angling for a Leningrad these days.

Couple of points.

1. After 1.d4 e6, I usually play 2.Nf3 specifically so that black doesn't "trick" me into a Dutch after 2.c4, because in my setup it's vital that black does not have the ...Bb4 pin available. Oh, and I do not play 1.e4 so I have no desire whatsoever of transposing into a French.

2. After 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.Nbd2 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.e4, I've always thought that ...fxe4 is best on principle. After 6...d5 it seems to me like that f-pawn really doesn't want to be there. Remember Yusupov's famous quote about the Dutch - he said the problem with the Dutch is that black very often in the middlegame finds that his best available move is f5-f7.

You guys....you forgot to mention the Dutch laid back attitudes and excellent coffeeshops.  Sheesh.

http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=1371811#

This game is in reference to Bc4 in one of the lines I posted.  I guess that Simon missed the sacrifices for the tempoes, or else he misevaluated it.  

Ozzie, I got that idea (...d5) from Bent Larsen.  Your idea is analagous to a position in Bird's Opening...

Pet peeve. I think the word you're looking for in the first line is "agreement" not "agreeance"; unless you're speaking antiquated pre-victorian english. 

Estragon, Simon Williams is around 2400 rated, and he plays the Dutch a lot.  Granted, he is a very tactical player, but his opinion is that e4 is the test of the system.  I think anything else, like e3, really gives Black more of what he is looking for - a more comfortable kingside development.  I would like to find my own opinion here eventually - that is why I am testing this setup for myself.  

Agreed on 2. e4.

Hey, a little respect for the Ginger GM here!  Up over 2500 these days! :)

But seriously, he's a pretty respected theoretician on French and Dutch lines.  Wrote the book, starred in the DVD, etc.

Ok, well your citations have me convinced that ...d5 is acceptable for black. One response to the comment "which just lets the knight get to a strong square".

Um couldn't the same thing be said about the entire Open Sicilian?

Always a problem with books on a certain opening, especially from the black perspective, is that the author is looking for ways to make the opening viable, even better, for black. On the face of it, it's a logical fallacy. It's not like there's all these openings which are at least equal and sometimes better for black which the top GMs are just not playing, well, I don't know why they're not playing them. Maybe they haven't read the book?

In these enlightened ages, one has to learn an opening alongside a strong database to keep the authors honest.

I never knew they did a S.O. book on the Dutch.  I like McDonald as an author, too.  Worth the paper it's printed on?  I might order it just to fill out my already burdensome Dutch collection.