Dutch Defence, 2.d5

miellago98
[COMMENT DELETED]
notmtwain

Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.

JonkheerHakzager

c6 or e6 seem fine. You could also continue with the normal line of nf6, I think.

miellago98
notmtwain написал:

Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.

Well, this move is quite pretentious, I don't believe it can bring any advantage for White.

notmtwain
Here is a recent game by Yasser Seirawan in the 2..c5 line (by transposition):
 
notmtwain
miellago98 wrote:
notmtwain написал:

Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.

Well, this move is quite pretentious, I don't believe it can bring any advantage for White.

"Pretentious" is not a chess term.  Also, "I don't believe it can bring any advantage for white" is far from saying it should be refutable.

Do you have anything definite related to weak squares, doubled pawns, king weakness, etc. to say about it? I didn't think so.

The fact that it is unusual doesn't mean it should be refutable.

Immortality99

miellago98 wrote:

This seems to be a very rare continuation in Dutch Defence, so I would like to know how to refute it. Do you have any ideas?

 

miellago98 wrote: This seems to be a very rare continuation in Dutch Defence, so I would like to know how to refute it. Do you have any ideas? 

miellago98
notmtwain написал:
miellago98 wrote:
notmtwain написал:

Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.

Well, this move is quite pretentious, I don't believe it can bring any advantage for White.

"Pretentious" is not a chess term.  Also, "I don't believe it can bring any advantage for white" is far from saying it should be refutable.

Do you have anything definite related to weak squares, doubled pawns, king weakness, etc. to say about it? I didn't think so.

The fact that it is unusual doesn't mean it should be refutable.

Well, the d5 becomes weak and defending it takes much time and can lead to underdevelopement. Otherwise, the pawn will be just captured and that's it. For example, 1. d4 f5 2. d5 e6 3. g3 exd5 4. Bg2 c6 and what to do?

 

Robert_New_Alekhine

2.d5 goes against all opening principles. Perhaps Nf6-d6-g6-Bg7-e6, trying to undermine the pawn? Also c5 seems to be good.

poucin

@ miellago  : why don't u take d5 with white?

Anyway, 1.d4 f5 2.d5 e6 (or e5) 3.d5xe6 seems better for white in the endgame after 3...d7xe6 4.Qxd8.

But maybe 3...d5 followed by Bxe6 with a strange Stonewall.

CornerPawn

At Dynamic Dutch Defense we use these structures all the time. If you want to play the Dutch as White and Black, for practice, find us under Share -- Groups and Teams -- in the tabs above.