Dutch Defense Question

I've recently started playing the Dutch Defense (1. d4 f5) as black. One of sidelines white can go into after 1. d4 f5 is the Staunton Gambit 2. e4 and then usually 2. ... fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5, and white usually gets his pawn back. In "Starting Out: The Dutch Defense" by Neil McDonald, he says that an alternate move order for those intending to play lines of the Dutch where they'd play e6 eventually is for black to play e6 before f5, thus avoiding some of the anti-Dutch sidelines, including this gambit.

So the obvious question: How exactly does this prevent the Staunton Gambit? I thought about this before and kind of had an idea in my head, but it actually came up today in a tournament game. I played a guy who had played the Staunton Gambit against me last time I answered his 1. d4 with f5, so I tried the e6 move order this time. The game started 1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. e4 fxe4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bg5 Bb4 6. f3, and I decided to go for development with O-O and let him have the pawn back at that point.

Is there a specific refutation I should know about when white plays this way?

--Fromper

As a former Dutch Defense player myself... I have two words of advice for you.

1. Stop before you waste your life learning this line.  There are TOO many traps (many undiscovered) that white can throw at you and you'll lose many-a-game to a well prepared white opponent.

2. If you insist on learning the Dutch, don't worry too much about the Staunton gambit.  It's not a particularly great line, it's not overly ambitious.  You'll rarely face it and if/when you do, just stick to the mainlines.  You'll be fine.

Are you talking about the Dutch or the Sicilian? Your statement is equally true of both openings. That doesn't make them bad or a waste of time. A number of Grandmasters do very well with the Dutch.

The Staunton Gambit is required reading. It took decades to discover the correct defenses so you do not want to be working it out over-the-board. But with proper play it is White that can be put in the position of trying to prove that he is equal. Much more dangerous anti-Dutchs are 2. Nc3 and 2. Bg5.

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 avoids the Staunton Gambit and several more dangerous anti-Dutch lines at the cost of allowing the French. I've come to realize that there will always be another anti-Dutch and 3. e4 proves it. This gambit is virtually unknown and is certainly not a Staunton Gambit. Compared to 1. d4 f5 2. e4, ... e6 is a normal useful Staunton move while c4 is not only a waste of time it blocks the natural square for White's light square bishop. I doubt this variation will become popular for White anytime soon.

I haven't consulted a computer but offhand 6. ... O-O seems like a really bad idea. Successful defenses to the Staunton usually involve either holding the pawn or returning it for counterplay often in combination with gaining the bishop pair through an exchange on f6. Here you don't seem to get much in return and concede White an easy development and big space advantage.

An interesting idea is 6. ... e3 to return the pawn in a way that screws up his development. But the obvious move is 6. ... d5. The isolated doubled pawns on e4 and e6 may look funny but this structure is well-known from the Staunton main lines. This is not the Caro-Kann. Piece activity and central control are the keys to countering early attacks in the Dutch.