I have had a great deal of difficulty finding a defense against d4.  Recently I began playing the Dutch Stonewall and felt like I had finally found something that might do the trick.

   However, I have run into a very large problem in playing this opening.  As it turns out, most of my fellow club players don't seem to know what to play against it, so they stick to their normal setups, for example: the colle, the london, and 2. c4 

    Now I have reason to believe that at the professional chess level, this is seen as suboptimal, unfortunately, my source of information for the stonewall(Aagard's book) has nothing to say on what to do against these systems with the dutch.  My impression is that it may not be ideal to go into a standard stonewall, but the only source of instruction that I have to help out in this regard is Fritz 11, which can provide book lines against my oppponents play.

   Could anyone else who plays the Stonewall share what they do when someone insists on playing their typical London/Colle/Queen's gambit systems against it?

I think the basic principles of the Dutch Stonewall would still apply.  Try to get a knight to e4, be careful of white getting a knight on e5, make sure your queenside is secure and launch a kingside attack when the time is appropriate.  If you have a more specific question, it might be helpful if you posted an example game.

Check out this article...

http://www.fpawn.com/chess/IntroDutch.htm

If the opponent pushes c4 early, you may want to look into playing the Anglo-Dutch system instead of the stonewall. Its a minor change, kind of a hybrid leningrad/stonewall.

What is usually your plan after you get to a basic stonewall position?  Judging from your play in the third game, it looks like you don't quite understand black's ideas for the middlegame.  I think 9...Qe7 followed by 10...Nbd7 would have been better, followed by Ne4 and pawn pushes of g5 and h5.  The idea of the stonewall is to keep the center and queenside locked down while you launch a pawn assault on the kingside.  9...e5 is especially bad imo because you lose all of your ability to keep the center locked, and now your weak king is just going to get exposed.

In the first game, I usually play 3...d5 in that situation.  If cxd5 then take back with the knight, and you end up in a fine position.  Otherwise you can continue to move into a stonewall position with e6, Bd6, O-O, Qe7, Nbd7, etc.

In the second game, I'm not sure I have a good answer for what to do when white gets his dark bishop on the b8-h2 diagonal.  I don't think it's an awful position after trading dark bishops on d6, but if you don't want that you might consider trying g6 followed by Bg7 and castling.

Some good advice about the ideas in the middlegame.  I wish I'd had more experience playing the opening before, well playing it in an event like the national opening.  Not a single opponent played e4 when they were white, instead I faced 2 1.d4s and a 1. c4, where all I had prepared was my mostly untested dutch setups.

I'm a little confused about why you need to know the noteboom since it looks like black initiates the exchange in the noteboom, not white.  Is it because allowing the noteboom gives black something desirable here that would make going into the noteboom more attractive then the stonewall?   Also, I had previously considered this move order but didn't have a plan for what to do if white initiates an exchange early with cxd5 before you've pushed the f pawn.

I just got a chance to play my first noteboom today.  This opening rocks!  Thanks for the information  fourfoursixnineonenine

The more mainline plans for White against the Stonewall - g3, Bg2, delaying c4, Nf3 or Nh3, 0-0, b3 & Bb2 or Bf4 - are "mainline" for a reason.  When White plays other stuff, it represents less of a challenge to the Stonewall set-up.

As Black, you should just ...0-0 and proceed with the Kingside pawn attack.  It will carry more impact against these "off" lines.  Not to say Black is better by force, by any means, but if I were Black playing a Stonewall I would much prefer to see White play a Colle or London System type of set-up than the main lines.

General principle of the Dutch Stonewall: White setups without c4 are fundamentally defective because they do not put adequate pressure on the d5 pawn to restrain the Black center. Sensible play should lead to easy equality for Black. Note that in the third game playing ... e5 before you properly prepared it and consequently trading your dark-squared bishop for a knight does not seem sensible at all.

Derivative playing principle for the Leningrad Dutch: If White plays c3 or Nc3 (blocking) before Black plays ... d6, then Black should seriously consider playing ... d5 (the Leningrad Stonewall) to punish him.

So do you think then that if white doesn't play c4 and doesn't adequately protect the e5 square that pushing e5 makes sense? 

I was thinking that if I had developed my knight first that it would have been a good idea.  The con to this I suppose would be what a previous poster mentioned about unlocking the center, which would make pushing the kingside pawns with the standard kingside attack less of an option.  Is it worth it to unlock the center in the stonewall in this fashion if your opponent is allowing it?

The thing that bothers me about going into a stonewall against the London system is that you can no longer develop your bishop to its ideal diagonal.  Do you think that it is still fine even though you have to develop your bishop to e7 or b4 instead? 

I suppose the bishop on f4 makes a good tempo gaining target for the g pawn which would be an advantage to the kingside push.

middle game weakness in your third game you was palying well but every critical change in the position worked for youre oppoment plus a elimental end game mistake cost you in the first game it was good queenside play that lead to a solid break through as well a some suspect defending consider playing leningard or main line dutch aswell

happyfanatic, I know this is an old thread, so I am kicking up some old dust here.  I would like to point out a bit of my ideas in these positions.  I used to hate seeing Bf4 against my Dutch (maybe because I wanted to play ...Bd6 without the trade)...honestly, you can play either ...Be7 or ...Bd6 and do fine.  

If you prefer ...Bd6:

If you prefer ...Be7:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/dutch-stonewall-defense-part-1

i wrote an extensive forum on blacks ideas, look in the comments too, i left an extremely detailed comment in there

Sorry I didn't see this at the time - sometimes the new topics push the old off the front page quickly, and I rarely have time to peruse beyond the first for updates.

You are correct that the Bf4 may become a tempo target for the later g5 push, but I'm also fine with deploying ...Be7 and possibly even ...Bb4.  Black's real problem is the Bc8.

Ah wow....old.  Thanks for the comments but I play the grunfeld these days.