To help to form an opinion after 90 years, I want to quote Alekhine's original texts from the book :
" All three games played with this antiquated and, in our opinion, fundamentally unsound defence ( because of the insecure Pawn Skeleton, the constant breakthrough threats with P-K4 or P-Q5 and, in the event of P-Q4, the hole at K5 ! ) took an unsatisfacrtory form for the second player and it was only with great care that he was able to rescue one of them through a draw ! And this despite the in no way energetic handling of the opening on White's part."
"In two games White played 4. B-KKt5, through which the command of the square K4 was left to the second player at least for a while."
" Despite the fact that the tactical skill of Dr Tartakower (...who was Black in the three games, RG...) enabled him to eventually equalize matters, the Dutch Stonewall Defence can be considered even less satisfactory than ever."
The Oxford Companion to Chess in 1996 says : "... in the 19th century this was the only standard alternative to 1. ... d5 as a response to 1. d4. After the advent of the Hypermodern Movement in the 1920s many other defences gained popularity but the Dutch has retained its place in the master's repertoire.
In the New York 1924 tournament book, Alekhine called the Dutch "unsound and antiquated." Do you agree?