There's nothing wrong with ...f5
I just want to mention these are some easy ways to play against it. First is like a standard queen's gambit type setup. Second is like a reversed london. Both involve natural development and will give you a playable (even favorable) middlegame where you can just play chess so to speak. In other words no specialized knowledge needed.
There's nothing wrong with ...f5
I just want to mention these are some easy ways to play against it. First is like a standard queen's gambit type setup. Second is like a reversed london. Both involve natural development and will give you a playable (even favorable) middlegame where you can just play chess so to speak. In other words no specialized knowledge needed.
Thanks! The Reversed London setup is interesting, I may try that. The reason I've avoided 1...d5 so far is that the Stonewall Dutch is the opening I struggle to face the most, hence I was nervous playing it a tempo down. However here I can see the extra tempo actually being a liability for white, as he has to commit to a structure earlier allowing black to get in the Bf5.
Yeah, the Bf5 Nf6 development is very nice against the stonewall. To stop your bishop from slicing into their light squares, they often play the good move Bd3 and there's a trade of bishops.
It's a good move... but for the rest of their game their light squares are weak, and they often have joyless endgames to defend thanks to their perpetually bad dark square bishop.
I'd like to play 1.f4 f5 as black but looking at a database it seems so rare that I'm concerned there might be something wrong with it. Is it good? It seems hard to believe there could be anything wrong with responding symmetrically to white's move.