Just study it
Best opening against d4.
Sort:
Well a half win is a draw, so if black equalises out of the opening then it is up to white to prove they are better. With the Dutch black has to be precise as white can play many things and not blunder, where as black needs to be sharp to play well in the Dutch. Much like the Sicilian it has good chances but is easy to slip up. There is an elitism about openings in chess which is strange. If it is not losing, then it is not bad. The stonewall is just a tool within several Dutch options. Not every opening mobilisation phase needs to be lightning fast, although it often helps.
GMegasDoux wrote:
Stonewall is probably the best Dutch. If you start in a semi slav you transpose into it avoiding gambit lines like Staunton, Keres or Korchnoi, which 1.d4 f5. Only waiting line for Leningrad is the hypermodern opening 1.d4 g6 which leaves you open to h file attacks and set ups the KID faces. KID is probably better than Leningrad as well. I am also not sold on Leningrad being better in the judgement of the engine. Any time I went through it I found it prefered e6 over g6 when f5 had already been played. Main draw back of Stonewall is no chance for a queenside fianchetto; so minimal LSB activity until later on, or traded off. Classical Dutch can utilise ideas from Bogo Indian and Queens indian which still means it is flexable and not to be ruled out. If you know the whole scope of the Dutch you can play it against most things with no issue. Gambits are always the biggest problem, but transposition takes the sting out of them.
The stonewall and leningrad are very similar in engine evaluation. The classical is below both of them if you don’t transpose into the stonewall and i’m talking about classical dutch where white doesn’t allow for the Bb4 pin or check so the dark squared bishop is on e7. And when the opponent goes bg2 so you can’t fianchetto your light square bishop. So against main lines i’m saying classical dutch is not the best compared to leningrad and stonewall. Also you should not be worried about gambits against the dutch. If you know what you’re doing black gets a perfectly good game. Possibly the only dangerous anti-dutch is Bg5 which is one of the top moves and is fully approved by the engine.
As I study the dutch and as i play it I agree though that the dutch is one of the harder openings to play as black especially if you start with 1. F5. Starting with 1. e6 is safer but you have to be ready to play the french and it narrows down the option for different variations of the dutch. The dutch is an opening that isn’t looking to equalize but to fight for a win even if that means taking big risks. I wouldn’t recommend it to beginners or people who don’t want to study it a lot.
8 days ago
0
#26
Ok. Out of the Nimzo-Indian Defense and the Dutch, which one do you think is easier and better to learn for a beginner-intermediate(idk if I even qualify as intermediate) like me?
Well you are rated higher than me, and I play the Dutch. It is easy enough to learn
I don't play the Nimzo-Indian. So can't say how easy that is to learn.
Queens Gambit Declined is probably the most simple and solid, but usually isn’t too exciting.
What I can say is that you can play Bb4 pinning the Nc3 knight in lines of the Dutch. Difference is what you choose to do afterwards. So there is crossover if you want to learn both. Nimzo Indian looks like a QGD line without d5 as well. The idea I believe is to force a disruption to white pawns structure via a trade, or inconvenience development. But one other thing. You can play Dutch against London, you cant play Nimzo Indian against it. You are going to face tons of London players.
8 days ago
0
#32
The dutch doesn't look good to me because it opens up the king the 2nd move of the game
The Dutch is aggressive. Like the KID you must keep the centre closed, push pawns on front of your king and bring pieces to the king side. It is a two edge sword. It is not the only method, but a big idea. It is possible but more difficult to castle queen side in the Dutch.
The Dutch defence. Starting with 1...f5.
Stonewall vs Catalan and Veresov
Leningrad vs Hopton Attack
Illyin-Zhenevsky vs 1c4+d3
Classical vs Anything Else
Lots of white gambits to prepare against - Hickman,Staunton, Lisytsin etc
A lot to learn but it is worth it. In my view no other opening improves your overall understanding about chess like the Dutch defence.
If you want to reduce the studying to a minimum play the Leningrad Dutch it is a universal set-up against all of the above. Stick with the simple plan Qe8+e5 and smash on the Kingside and in the center but be careful about the light square diagonal.
8 days ago
0
#35
ChanMan4 wrote:
Ok. Out of the Nimzo-Indian Defense and the Dutch, which one do you think is easier and better to learn for a beginner-intermediate(idk if I even qualify as intermediate) like me?
The dutch is a strange opening, with strange positions that you may not be used to.
The nimzo indian is a normal opening, with strange ideas that you may not be used to.
I have a dutch bias, because I don't find the Nimzo indian's ideas to be very strange. I find the opening to be quite standard. Which may be what you like, but it isn't what I like. Everyone is different, everyone plays different.
Thankfully, we can all learn things; that's what gets us better, no? Why don't you watch some quick opening videos on both openings, and make the decision yourself? If you ask in the forums, everyone will always recommend the opening they like to play, and not necessarily what you would like to play. After all, if it worked for yourself, surely it must work for everyone else... right?
7 days ago
0
#36
Englund gambit ftw! The theoretical bookworms will tell you its trash, screw 'em we ball anyway. Nothing more satisfying than absolute destruction on the chess board.
Why how is it a half win? Would I already be in a losing position?