Is the Dutch defese good?

A few important things to mention is

1) In the Averbach lines most KID players no longer play e5 + f5 any more because if White Castle long. They can have Rooks on g1 & h1 which can be devastating. KID players often play c5 now as their pawn break.

The example I showed was sort of how players use to play it. Just to show some of the similarities.

2) Think of the Leningrad Dutch like a KID which has kept the center pawn tension.

The pawns are not fixed or unmovable.

They can still move or trade.

A lot of the KID side lines keep the tension, the main lines grab the space.

You can see how the Leningrad could appeal to players who might want to play a KID, but might not want to deal with the main space grabbing lines.

3) Last thing I want to mention was the line does have differences. I was just commenting on the similarities.

Interesting, I'm willing to accept that is possible that that 1...f5 is not played by the most players, and might look into it if I have the time to learn to study databases better, but did you consider that Compadre's original claim was only about 1...e6 (and the rare transposition of 1...g6 to Dutch) so you would have to cut out all players that don't start with 1...e6 in triangle lines, which might be the majority of cases? I've played the triangle for years and most players to for it via 1...d5.

And if you include players who do Nimzo transpositions they would also have to start with 1...e6. So you might be right about f5 in general but Compadre might be still wrong about his claims.

For that particular claim yes, but for the more meaningful question of how the total dutch player count is distributed... the question that we should in theory care about if we want to understand trends in the dutch and how people are thinking about it at a high level, no.

Although I don't think even this precise analysis is very meaningful since players play the dutch via 1... f5 for very specific reasons, they also play the nimzo or the triangle for another set of specific reasons, even comparing raw players counts is kind of a meaningless effort to quantize something that can't be quantized.

Btw, when I played the triangle I went 4...f5 only against the line with d4, c4, Nc3 and e3. I hate the line with Nf3 and it's the one I always aim for when playing against the Stonewall.

Agreed, though that line gives the semi-slav setup trouble too, it's just the annoying line in that setup. If I had to choose just one line vs e3 though in both triangles it'd probably be the semi-slav. But if I had to choose a serious way to play the dutch... probably it'd be the triangle.

In the Meran Nf3 line, I like to aim for b3 and 5.Nbd2 is my subtlety. It might be drawish against 5...c5!?, which scores well, but it discourages lines like ...Bb4 with ...Ne4 and ...f5, which are possible after 5...b3. So the line is less complex.

Yeah I like the c5 lines in that position. I do like the b3 setup for white too... i used to play that setup from the breyer slav when black tried to enter a regular semi-slav setup. If I went back to 1. d4 I'd probably continue playing the breyer -

I do want to clarify 1 thing so their isn’t confusion.

When I said most Dutch players don’t play the Dutch with 1…f5 - Keep in mind, I was talking about the pure Dutch players!

Obviously, we can debate what a Pure Dutch player is vs. Regular Dutch Players.

The Pure Dutch players I have talked with have told me the Anti-Dutch lines don’t really feel like Dutch games so they try to avoid those lines by using transpositional tricks.

If you play 1…f5, Than you have to be prepared for those types of lines.

If you don’t play 1…f5, than you have to be prepared to play stuff like French and Modern as someone already mentioned so it is a trade off either way.

It just comes down to the players really.

I finally found it!

It was bugging me on how to reach the chess position.

I remembered what the position sort of looked like for like 10 years ago, but I couldn’t remember how to get into it with the moves. I think I found it.

White can play Bd3, Be2, or Qc2

Black has to be careful to make sure white doesn’t castle Long.

I think Black might play c6 + b5 against the white castling long similar to like a Pirc or Modern.

Now to show the other line.

On move 6, the moves Nf3 and Nh3 are little more common.

I think e3 is probably 3rd popular, but it gets played.

——————————

Slightly outdated lines, but going from my memory from 10 years ago wasn’t to bad.

The above is also another way the line can transpose.

I found a cool Fabby game as well.

The Dutch is a perfectly sound defense, but it is tricky and takes a lot of time to get used to the positions that arise. If you've not played it before, be prepared to lose a lot of games at first, but really, that can apply to taking up any opening as you need to gain experience with the resulting middle game positions and what the best plans are. As someone else mentioned, GingerGM (GM Simon Williams) uses the Dutch as one of his main defense openings, although he tends to start with 1. d4 e6 ... and then opts for the Dutch or the French, pending upon White's response, in order to avoid some lines he doesn't like playing. He doesn't see the lines he's avoiding as refutations to the Dutch, or even necessarily as being bad for Black, rather, the positions are just ones that don't suit him personally.

I've always found the Dutch can be a lot of fun and I've played it since the 90s when I was younger (and a much better player). I've gotten back into chess again and still use it because it means I can limit the number of defenses as Black I need to study while I focus on re-learning a number of openings and options with the White pieces. At some point I will want to start to learn other defenses as Black and not just so I can have variety in my games, but in the end to improve it is necessary to explore a wide range of openings and the various positions that result from them. But I'm a long way off from where the choice of opening really makes any difference as a good blunder or two can destroy any supposed advantage (or disadvantage) that theoretically comes with the choice of the opening moves.

Likely re-iterating what others have said here, but:
The dutch is not good at engine level. You likely already know this. Good news though, neither you, nor your opponents are engines!! I play the dutch as my only defence against D4. It has worked to get to me to 2200, so I say go for it! In my experience, your opponent frequently gets into relatively equal territory by just playing natural development moves (I play the leningrad Dutch). So, no, it's not inherently 'good' like the sicilian or the ruy lopez are, but it's still a completely fine opening for you to play.

That might be the case, but there's this one famous game by Alphazero against the old Stockfish 8, which was running on a weaker machine. New engines would of course play better as White.

While not the best game ever played, I just came home from a quiz night with buddies and decided to play a game. I only play the bots, and as they recently replaced "Antonio-Bot" with "Wendy-bot" for us free account people, I put up a game against that one. And I got into a Dutch, and was met with the Staunton Gambit (2. P-K4 or 2. e4 for the young ones ). Anyway, years ago I used to know a line or two for this that went 13 or so moves deep, but I realised now all that I recalled was that I should recall it better! Ooops! So, while not the prettiest of games, here is what transpired.

I think last time I analyzed the dutch I used stockfish and I was underwhelmed, but this time using leela actually the engine analysis wasn't as bad as I remembered. Leela is more realistic early on, just conceding space or exposing your king doesn't seem to automatically scare leela as much. Infact the leningrad according to leela is just very slightly worse than the KID (like 2-3 centipawns). My hesitation for playing the dutch is more based on the vulnerable king than the engine analysis per se... I just remember games in the Leningrad where I lost after playing well just at the end of a line some check on my king on move 30 resulted in a loss. It's quite a pain to manage that vulnerability the entire game. But like most things it's probably manageable if you really seriously know your theory. But really I think if I wanted this type of whole-board epic fiancetto position that's very theoretical and aggressive I'd probably play the Grunfeld or KID before resorting to the dutch, life is just going to be so much easier that way.

I'm big on king safety, and it's why I play the Tarrasch Defense. I've tried so many defenses over time against 1 d4 but only in the Tarrasch Defense has my king never come under attack. Ok, once, but I played very badly, I called for it.

I guess I should count the following as a second time, but it's not what I usually play: A curious thing is when I gave Dubov's way of playing the Tarrasch Defense a try my king came under attack. It could be that I just didn't know what I was doing, but after it happened I said to heck with that, lol, and haven't played the variation since.

I've never found a defense against 1 e4 in which my king is as safe. If I had that's what I would be playing.

the Petrov is the only e4 defense that comes to mind which may result in a really safe king. Sicilian.... in most lines, but then there are some where it gets attacked. Otherwise maybe some attacking line could maintain the initiative for most of the game and avoid attack, maybe a pawn sac or something like this.

i believe that if you dont mess the first 5 moves blundering any checks , then you have a quite high win percentage cuz players nowadays are used to the same stuff that we have been playing from ages so it may work , also it may surprise your opponent on OTB tournaments 
But if you allow any checks before 5 moves then its done but its very rare when that happens in intermediate level , so yeah...

I used to play the Dutch. I liked the classical variation but seldom got to play it. White has a whole bunch of options against the Dutch (including gambits) that provide serious winning chances and quick knock outs. The seldom mentioned "Side Lines" are no joke.

Without entering the "Is it sound?, Is it a good opening?" debate. Here are some things to consider. The Dutch is a difficult and complicated opening to play properly. It also allows white a variety of options to steer the direction of the game (Like 2. Bg5 or early Nc3/e4, e4/g4 gambit ideas for example). With this in mind, I think the Dutch is a good choice for advanced players who can devote the time and energy for serious study. Black has options that are easier to learn and play. Such as a QGA/QGD type repertoire, which limits white's options. This is an important factor when it comes to learning chess openings. Economical choices and use of time. This approach also allows more time for play, and middlegame study.

And for those going on about how "Botvinnik played it his whole career" I'm sure that if he had Stockfish on an Intel i7 his opening choices would have been different. The fact that Botvinnik was one of the greatest players in history is worth remembering when looking at his results.

Just because an engine finds white's gambits dubious at 30 ply doesn't help you much when the clock is ticking.

As for starting with 1. ... e6 to side step different variations. Be prepared to play the French defense frequently. So this requires an entirely different opening to learn just to play the Dutch.

The "pseudo-Dutch"!? is a variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defense. Which is a different opening altogether.

With these things in mind, the Dutch is way too much work (for me at least).

I used to play the pseudo-Dutch instead.

Start as a Nimzo-Indian, and then transpose into a Dutch where White has accepted the pin on c3.