For all people who believe in the Dutch Defence/Stonewall Dutch or are unsure what to play vs 1d4

And how is that to be known if the diagram has got multiple pieces missing? Pretty poor try to talk your way out to be honest, you could have just said you made a mistake. As for diagram 4 there is nothing to look at anymore, I have explained why diagram 4 is not winning by any means providing you with a screen shot with computer evaluation in post #40. Do you mind telling us what you think about it instead of pointing me towards something that has been addressed already and ideally support it with an engine evaluation.

I'm not sure what your rating is, but you are acting and arguing like a 1000 rated player who has no clue what he's talking about.

There is no such thing as a "winning setup for white". Because you are ignoring that black also has a right to exist.

There are no winning 'setups'. Only winning plans and ideas, and that's if your opponent cooperates with them.

Ideas for White involve:

1: trading off the dark-squared bishops.

2: planting knights on d3 and f3 to control the weak squares and limit Black's pawn breaks.

3: prepare the opening of lines by opening the center with f2-f3 and e4, or the queenside with c4-c5 and b2-b4-b5, the c-file with cxd5, and if ...exd5 is played, then the b2-b4-b5 minority attack, r the kingside with some sort of f2-f3 and g2-g4 thrust, combined with e4.

4: dealing with black's knight on e4, whether it is exchanged off for the g2 bishop (or a knight) followed by a pawn break, or pushed back by f2-f3.

5: if the dark-squared bishops are not exchanged and white cannot exchange it for a knight, putting the bishop on e3 and then probing with an eventual Ne5. This bishop on e3 is quite useful in guarding the d4 pawn. If black takes the knight on e5, white may do well to avoid recapturing with the other knight and take with the d4 pawn instead which will change the pawn structure. There may be tactical rejoiners if White prepares this concretely, if black attempts to win the pawn on e5, including sacrifices on d5. This is on a case-by-case basis. Of course, a knight landing on e5 vs a bad light-squared bishop, when that knight can not be challenged by any piece that is left, is going to be very bad for Black, if white can then open a file and use that knight to attack (just like any bastion knight vs bad bishop position).

There's a difference between some 'fantasy position' and actual concrete *ideas*.

It’s clear to me that you both never actually read what I wrote.

You looked at my first Mock Diagram and began criticizing vs. actually reading what I said.

I showed a Fantasy Position to help players who are low level follow among and understand what I am saying.

It was done with the Chess.com Audience in mind.

Afterward, I began explaining why the normal Dutch move order with 1…f5 isn’t always used vs. other move orders which addresses the conversion the NM had previously.

Lastly, I showed a move by move concrete line demonstrating how the fantasy position I showed in the beginning comes to life.

There is nothing for Black in the StoneWall Dutch position.

The position you showed on your engine isn’t the position I mentioned.

The one I mentioned is Nbd2 which is 0.30

White is winning with slight advantage.

Black has not equalized.

Qc1 is an alternative variation white can play.

The Qc1 alternative variation is another respectable line and your engine showed 0.28.

I think your engine is off by 0.02 in its evaluation and I think the Qc1 line you are showing is winning for White as well.

However, if you want to claim, it isn’t winning due to 0.02 evaluation difference that is fine.

BUT regardless Black hasn’t Equalized.

I`m sorry to say but I don`t think you have any idea what you are talking about. In the mock position not only black`s light square bishop is missing but also the queens are off. Are you telling me it makes not difference in a position where no pieces are exchanged ,even if we assume you missed the LS bishop, if queens are on or off? This makes zero sense and it gives zero credibility to the line you have given in diagram 4 simply because if you input the two diagrams which are supposed according to you to lead to the same conclusion you will get a completely different outcomes engine evaluation wise depending on where the queens are.

Onto your claim the position I showed is not in the line you suggested. You just admitted it is because you said Qc1 is an alternative line you suggested so it is part of what you showed. Now you can see the computer evaluation for your so called main line below which is once again equal.

Even if it wasn`t and as you said it was 0.30 this is by no means winning and is still considered equal. So your "white is winning with slight advantage" is quite baffling. You clearly don`t know how to read engine evaluation and I would suggest you familiarise yourself with that first. You are saying my engine is off by 0.02 when you haven`t shown your engine parameters and readings and you seem to have no intention to do it (as if 0.02 mattered at all). I have provided the evidence for my claims you have not and cannot provide the evidence for yours therefore the conclusion is that black is equal after both Qc1 and Nbd2.

"White is winning with slight advantage"--ok now I know you are a troll. Blocking you now--you are a complete waste of time. You have NO idea what "winning" is in a chess game.

I mean jolly....White is "winning with slight advantage" BEFORE THE VERY FIRST MOVE OF A GAME (0.3). Run for the hills, folks.

yo it's NM

*an

A slight advantage can be turned over in some games

I would know that lol

In general yes. Here no because there is no advantage in the positions in question. The original poster seems to think that anything other than absolute 0.00 computer evaluation is an advantage, which it is not.

Objectively, an advantage of 0.01 to 0.35 (ok let's say (0.2 or higher, but below 0.5) usually means that the position is "easier" to play for that side, while the other side has to play more accurate moves. This can be considered "some" sort of advantage, because it means that there is a higher chance of the second player going wrong with an inaccurate move. I'd call this a psychological advantage rather than a physical one. For example, in otherwise evenly contested game, one bishop having a scope of 3 squares vs a second bishop having only one square (not including the square they sit on) can be considered a possible advantage in territory, but this may not count for anything if the other pieces are not able to use this to their advantage somehow (remember the "law of two weaknesses?").

It seems that evaluations from 0.01 to 0.09 are more in the "unclear" territory, but what's interesting is that if you reverse the scale, -0.30 for black seems to be far more pleasant for black than +.30 is for white (maybe this is all mental again, after all, if black is =/+ after an opening, something definitely went wrong for White! Some of the most interesting positions seem to be when the eval is -0.01 to -0.09, while 0.01 to 0.09 almost seem boring by comparison.

0.00 evaluations almost always lead to some sort of repetition or perpetual check.

You`ve made some good points and I agree with most. However I personally do not take computer evaluation below 0.45 too literary. While the side with the "disadvantage" has to play accurately the side with the "advantage" psychological or otherwise has to maintain the same accuracy to maintain the advantage and with the human factor being ever present this is easier said than done. Then we can talk about practical considerations i.e. playability from human perspective or is the advantage really and advantage, concrete reasons for the computer evaluation i.e is the evaluation based on some 20+ move lines, is the advantage in the opening where memorisation can help or in the middlegame or the endgame where you have to play on your own, strength of the engine, time it is left to think on etc etc.