Help me master the Stonewall please!

I think you hit the nail on the head.

They all seem to be sensitive and defensive because the OP is low rated.  So they figure his opponents will not know anything anyway, might as well play something that will trick them now and be totally useless later.  It would be like a beginner basketball player playing Point Guard saying "These are all rookies I am facing, how about I dribble the ball while running up the court backwards?"

Instead, I always encourage people to start with openings that follow all the fundamentals of good opening concepts while sticking to those that are simpler, such as the Queens Gambit Declined and Ruy Lopez.  Neither one violates rules like throwing the Queen out early (Scandinavian), Not grabbing your share of the center or space (Alekhine, KID), or that create glaring weaknesses early on (Najdorf-d5, Stonewall Dutch-e5, etc).

With dubious openings like the Stonewall Attack or Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, the moment you get to a certain milestone, like 1800, you will have to start over.  Something like the Colle or London, at least White is still fine, but you will never get more than Equality.

The Ruy and QGD can be played for a lifetime.  When you reach 1800, I highly encourage you to explore other openings (Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Grunfeld, KID, Nimzo-Indian, Slav, Semi-Slav, Dutch, Modern), but if none of them appeal to you, you have something to fall back on.  You play the Stonewall or Blackmar-Diemer Gambit or the Grob, you have nothing to fall back on.  Having the Ruy and QGD is like having a backup fund for 6 months if you lost your job.

I might be one that plays the French and KID, but if I had to, i could always fall back on the QGD and Ruy - I know and understand them both from both sides.

I do not say the Stonewall Attack is a bad idea just for the sake of stirring up ruckus.  I am trying to make you an all around better chess player!

A very commendable explanation, and one that did not require a "hot garbage" exclamation. As I explained before, I was glad to see someone write (in this thread) something about the problem with choosing the Stonewall Attack. I am even more grateful for your subsequent exposition, making it clear (I think) that it might work for a low-rated player, but would be a serious problem at a higher level. I think that it is worthwhile to spell out that point because some players may have no intention to get anywhere near 1800 while others may be willing to accept the inefficiency that would be associated with a quick-fix current opening choice combined with a plan to change later. One can disapprove of such choices, and, in the interest of trying to encourage someone to be an all around better chess player, one can point out a possible different choice. However, such encouragement seems to me to be more likely to be effective if it is expressed with explanation and without an apparent attempt to engender negative emotions.

#65

First off, your line in post 64 is inferior for both sides.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5, white should hold off on Nc3 and play 3.g3 intending 4.Bg2.

After 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2, Black should wait as long as possible before playing ...d5 unless the Knight has already been committed to f3 and the g-pawn is pushed.

Better is 4...c6 (and c6 should not be played if c4 has not been played - 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.O-O Bd6 6.c4 and only now 6...c6).  Now if 5.Nf3, then 5...d5.  If 5...Nh3, then 5...d6,playing a classical setup.  In the main line, 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 4.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6 5.Nf3 d5 6.O-O Bd6, now 7.b3! is strongest, virtually forcing 7...Qe7 as otherwise 8.Ba3 forces the Bishops off.

No other way to learn chess but to learn endgame...I Invite you to watch and learn my YouTube Chess Channel...its free to subscribe......FM Jesse

www.youtube.com/channel/UC19el2OO2z-aWnLlyuu8ToQ

Cheers...I hope my YouTube Chess Channel would be of help to improve your chess skills to attain much higher rating....kindly subscribe its free...just press click....FM Jesse

Having said that I think the O.P. needs to learn to play chess in normal positions and then apply it to the rather difficult Stonewall attack. It should be clear that in the first example in post #1, black can play 3. ...e5, which equalises completely because either the p or the N can hit the B. The second example is well-principled by black but it leaves b7 unprotected. White can deviate from the Stonewall and play 3. c4. If, for instance, black plays 3. ...c6 we have a Slav where black has already gone slightly wrong, due to that weakness. Example three looks bad for black but if you don't take it, black has got something for nothing and is probably better.

okay i've changed

im now playing the english!

need pointers on that  too

and ikd what my playing style is so yeah...

The points are as follows:

1) Black should not be premeditating a Stonewall.  It should be a last resort.

2) Black needs to bolster his center first, so before anything else, f5, Nf6, and e6, in some order.  French players will play 1...e6 first to avoid 2.Bg5 lines.

3) After that, if allowed, Black would love to play b6 and Bb7.  Otherwise, the bishop is crap behind d7, e6, f5.  This is why White plays an early g3, to beat black to the diagonal.

4. If c4 is played, play c6.  If not, do not to maintain flexibility.

5. The one position you cannot allow in the Stonewall is Bishops on f4 and d3 for White.  Only if you can shatter the pawns with ...Bxf4 is this acceptable.  So after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3, you should play ...Bb4 with an improved nimzo.

6. The reason to play 4...c6 after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 is you are waiting for a commitment from White before yuh ou play d5.  If Nf3, then d5.  If Nc3, then d5.  If Nh3, going for f4 or setting up Bf4, then ...d6!, going for a classical with ...e5, controlling f4.

7. The reason not to play an early Nc3 is to try to set up Ba3, forcing the dark squared Bishops off, leaving holes in Black's position.  With the N still on b1, 8.Ba3 is a threat and hence 7...Qe7, at minimum severely delaying the trade.

I suppose one could try Starting Out: English Opening by Neil McDonald (2003),

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627024240/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen53.pdf

but my impression is that the English is not usually considered to be a good choice for someone with an ~800 rating. This seems to be the most common sort of advice:

"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play. ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start any sort of opening education with Discovering Chess Openings, a book about opening principles.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

Here are some books that set out to help the reader to choose a 1 e4 approach:

Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/

https://www.chess.com/blog/ForwardChess/book-of-the-week-openings-for-amateurs
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf

My First Chess Opening Repertoire for White
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9033.pdf
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/vincent-moret/
Opening Repertoire 1 e4
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7819.pdf

Be sure to try to use an opening in games in between sessions of learning. Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid. After a game, it makes sense to try to look up the moves in a book and see if it has some indication of how one might have played better in the opening. Many opening books are part explanation and part reference material. The reference material is included in the text with the idea that one mostly skips it on a first reading, and looks at an individual item when it applies to a game that one has just played. Resist the temptation to try to turn a book into a mass memorization project. There are many important subjects that one should not neglect because of too much time on opening study.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/learning-an-opening-to-memorize-or-understand
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

From time to time, one sees advice of this sort in a chess book:

"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

If you are aware that you have preferences of that sort, it might make sense to allow them to influence your opening choice. However, if you are not aware of such preferences, it would be perfectly reasonable to ignore the issue.

"... You don't have to have a style. …" - Ellen DeGeneres

English is a rare opening for beginners.

wow thanks for spending so much time to reply to me!

also, the reason i don't rly prefer e4 is because it gives black so much oppurtunity to choose the opening

that way i don't have to prepare for so many openings, examples Sicilian Caro-Kann and stuff like that

thank you for spending so much time to help me though

i'll take all of the advice given by people who replied to me and thanks to all!

I think you're overestimating the importance of opening theory. You could start with something like four to five moves against any of that and then play chess. Develop your pieces, control the center, bring the king into safety, don't lose by simpe tactics, win by simple tactics.

1. d4 followed by 2. c4 would be good as well. I switched to that with a 1200 rating. But looking back i would have gained more playing strength if i would had continued with 1. e4!

And i don't like 1. c4 for players your playing strenght.

I can certainly understand that it must seem pretty intimidating to consider having to face all those possibilities. One thing to remember is that your opponents are also not likely to have a lot of experience. One can gradually build up one's readiness by playing through some of the games in one of the books that I mentioned. The Moret book, in particular, is RussBell-approved. There are a number of alternatives to 1 e4 that are, from time to time, suggested to beginners. Perhaps the most common one is discussed here:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-perfect-opening-for-the-lazy-student

https://www.chess.com/blog/2Bf41-0/3-reasons-why-everyone-should-play-london-system-pawn-structures

https://www.chess.com/blog/2Bf41-0/london-system-q-a

https://www.chess.com/article/view/should-you-play-openings-like-magnus-carlsen

Can we build it 5 feet wide, 5 feet long, and 500 feet high, with no door, and a concrete floor, and drop Trump inside it?

Maybe a pyramid?

on this position you should:

take the pawn

Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

Not a good opening because it is so transpositional. That is, to get the best out of the English you have to be an expert on 1,d4 openings. And on the Sicilian.