A deeper understanding of the Dutch Stonewall?

2...g6 does nothing about the Bishop. The reason White moved it was to keep the Knight from fighting for e4. If Black brings his Knight out, he will get doubled pawns. If he tries to push the Bishop back, he makes it easier to attack his King. If he ignores the Bishop, he has missed the entire point of the Dutch in the first place (control of e4).

Every opening move should have a purpose, and the Dutch is an attempt to clamp down on e4. If White allows Black's Knight to do so, it can give him problems in the center. Moving the Bishop early on is essentially an anti-Dutch line, a favorite weapon of GM Yasser Seirawan.

I agree, it doesn't look like a very strong line 2...g6, because at best, looking at it more closely white will very easily get in e4 if he has the option of removing the f6 knight, and very rarely does black equalize when white gets in this move. It takes out a lot of potential dynamic chances for black.

The line where black pushes his kingside pawns with ...h6 and ...g5, is at best very risky, (certainly not principled play!) although black has lots of tactical resources to hold on, so I have no idea how that actually turns out.

The idea of the dutch to me is more like take control of e4, but try to attack on the kingside later on, because really the best way to control that square is either with the queen's gambit or nimzo/queen's indian.

According to my database 2...g6 is the most popular move after 2.Bg5.

The point is to develop the dark sqaured bishop first, and also prepare ...h6, since there is no more Qh5 +.

Sure White gets to play e2-e4, but Black is able to answer d7-d5, usually followed soon by e7-e5 or even c7-c5.

Again black has lots of tactical resources, and with them he often escapes with a decent position, even though at first it looks dreadful lol.

I agree, it does look dreadful at first sight, but ...c5 is coming : )

That looks like bad play by White. I'd play e3, c4, and only then Nbd2. Also, an h-pawn thrust early on coupled with active piece play will lead to a strong attack. I don't see how anyone in their right mind would castle Kingside as Black.

Your bishop on g5 is an obstacle in the way of your pawn storm, when you push pawn h4 to h5, Black  replies ...h6! (Bishop anywhere) ...g5.

I find it hard to believe that going for e2-e4 in one go can be called 'bad play by White'.

I also find it hard to believe that after e2-e3 and c2-c4, you will play your knight to d2 and not c3.

Not at all. The h-pawn advance is not hindered by the Bishop in the slightest.It won't be a pawn storm, but that's not necessary anyway.

Obviously in the line you gave, the e4 advance was practically useless. Thus, bad play.

You play the Knight to d2 because from there it is easier to get to the Kingside, where Black will be attacked shortly.

The Dutch is a shaky defense at best, and I don't see why anyone would make it an object of much study when they'd have better OTB results with a more sound line. It seems like a desperate attempt at creativity, to me.

"It seems like a desperate attempt at creativity, to me."

Honestly, it probably is ("desperate" may be just a tad strong, but it certainly leaves lots of openings), yet that doesn't stop some people from finding ideas and getting some unexpected wins against stronger players (inevitably coupled with some hideous losses too). Personally I wouldn't want to use it too much, I'm fine with slowly improving my position in the solid defenses.

I agree. I'm sure it works sometimes as a surprise weapon, especially if you know the lines well and your opponent does not. Like when someone sprang the St. George's defense on Karpov. haha

There is no comparison between the Dutch which is a sound opening that was played in world championship matches and something like St. George's defense. You don't know what you are talking about.

They are both inferior defenses. How inferior is a matter of debate.

Those are pretty harsh words.

And if you're going to use championship matches as a method for determining an opening's soundness, perhaps you should consider the following game: 

Perhaps they are a bit too harsh...but I honestly don't see how anyone would choose 1.f5 over an Indian defense, Slav, QGD, or Nimzo.

It seems to me like they want to play more creatively and perhaps surprise their opponent with new lines. That I understand. But getting the jump on a few top-level players doesn't make an opening sound. The move itself doesn't violate any major opening principles, but it's too easy for White to overextend/attack Black's Kingside, IMO.

Miles used the St. George's in a desperate attempt to surprise Karpov against whom he had very bad results both previously and subsequently, and he got lucky that one time. (It wasn't a world championship match, either.) Again, it is not at all the same as the Dutch which has been used by grandmasters as a regular choice, and even by world championship level players like Bottvinik frequently. Nobody uses the Dutch as a "surprise weapon" because every decent 1. d4 player will be prepared for it. These are the distinctions that you don't seem able to grasp.

@Insane_Chess: That's a reasonable opinion, but you have to remember that as far as chess openings go, there are distinct boundaries between the types of opening. The ones you seem to favor most are the mainstream ones (and obviously, there's a reason that they're so popular!), but don't get the less popular and slightly riskier openings mixed up with the ones that are considered to be "trick" openings or the unsound openings. There is a pretty noticeable difference between the Dutch and an opening like 1.e4 a6.

Yeah, ok. I wasn't trying to call them the same thing. At least the Dutch is actually trying to control the center.

This thread has made me want to attempt the Polish Defense in my next match. :D

Nah, now you're going a bit too far. Polish defense really does suck

Sort of.

I believe it's bursting with un-tapped brilliancies.