I have been under the impression that the stonewall attack was a little too

strong and closed for amateurs to defend well against - so that playing it

 may not be the best training.

Am I wrong/right for having a slight bias/suspicion against the talent of stonewall players?

Thank you. This is exactly what I thought and was looking to confirm.

Stonewall is certainly not something any begginer should start from.Any one that does,  will regret it sooner or later.

There are a lot need to be learned on 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5(with both colors of course) , a lot no one affords not to learn.Unfortunately , very few  realise that.

In general, any "system" which allows you to play essentially the same moves against any opposing moves is more of a gimmick than an opening.

These gimmicks will sometimes allow you to trick weaker players (those you would have beaten anyway) and win quickly, but put you at a disadvantage at anyone even cursorily prepared for your rote set-up.

I hate facing it in blitz when it's clear this is the only thing the person ever plays.  Very boring... but can be good for blitz because there's not too much variation (if any) to what you'll be doing the whole game...

Well, I shouldn't pick on the stonewall... it's annoying when any player does the same thing over and over in a series of blitz.  Part of the fun is trying out different openings (or variations at least).

It really depends. The Stonewall can be good against certain set ups. If there is really no need to play it, you might prefer a Leningrad or a classical since these are more aggressive and flexible. 

I disagree about the "more aggressive"(I think Stonewall is the most aggressive from the Dutch family) but certainly they are more flexible.

Stonewall attack is easily refuted. On blacks second move 2...b~b4 after white plays the tell tale 2~pk3. There is many others like 2~p~kb4 followed  n~kb3,or p~qb4 which will rattle the opponent!!!!!

i try playing the dutch trying to avoid  the stonewall because the backward e pawn makes things awkward mutch like the bennoni

Stonewall attack easily refuted???One of the greatest players and teachers ever appeared , Mikhail Botvinnik , played Stonewall regularly.You probably know something he didn't.

Stonewall is not possible to be refuted, it is just not possible to be played against anything  as many do.

Botvinnik played stonewall regularly??? Maybe it was a variation on the colle system you are getting mixed up with.It looks  the same but it is not!!!!

It is actually. There are few other ways that White can force a stonewall.

1.d4 d5 and now what? Any move other than 2.Nf3 and 2.c4 can be met by Bf5 stopping White's obvious idea of playing the bishop to d3.

Yes I do "getting mixed up" a lot.Just recently learned that Ruy Lopez is not a shοe brand like Timberland.

Oh, you're talking about the stonewall defence. Nevermind then.

Interested in pfren's comment.  I HATE facing ...d6 setups - what to do with the Nf3?  Been thinking about this...

A naive assumption many do.

Marshall attack in Ruy Lopez is played by black.

Stonewall attack is not played because white has so much better choices and because the extra tempo more hurts than do any good.Against any non ...d5 formation Stonewall seems silly and is simply ineffective.So white starts with 1.d4 , after 1...Nf6 his Stonewall dreams are over in most of the cases.White has to start with 1.f4 which is hardly a good choice in comparison with 1.e4 and 1.d4 and again , any unprepared opponent can only employ a king's Indian defense set up and Stonewall is over.

  Botvinnik with Black played it under certain conditions.In other cases he played Leningrad Dutch and Classical Dutch.