Learning the Dutch Problems

Hey,
I have been having a hard time fully understanding the Dutch or trying to learn it. I have read the following books on this Dutch kind of theory.

1. The Killer Dutch by Simon Williams
2. The Leningrad Dutch by Neil McDonald
3. Win With The Stonewall Dutch by Sverre-Johnsen and Iver Bern
4. Bird’s Opening by Cyrus Lakdawala
5. Bird’s Opening by Timothy Taylor
6. The Leningrad by Wulebgr
7. Opening Tactics - Volume 3 The Leningrad by Michael Duke
8. Opening Tactics - Volume 2 The Stonewall by Michael Duke

Despite all this I do not think I am getting it. For example: I read one book on the Alekhine; The Alekhine for The Tournament Player by Lev Alburt and Eric Schiller and understood all the ideas so well despite not memorizing any lines really, losing almost no games with the Alekhine in over-the-board tournaments. Many strong players have came up to me and said I probably have a near gm understanding of that opening. However, I am trying to gain a strong understanding of the Dutch and Bird openings. What are some tips to overcome this problem without quitting the Dutch? Maybe the books I have read are not the greatest quality or written well enough. What are some better book recommendations if any? How can I really learn the Dutch to a high level?

Thanks

Yours truly,


Mr. Crow

Win With the Stonewall Dutch is one of the best books ever written.  The layout, explanations, move order issues in the intro, etc are all phenominal.

 

I wager you are not studying it right.  How long does it take you to analyze 1 game.  If the answer is anything under a full hour, you are studying it all wrong.  It is important to understand the very minute details in this opening otherwise the e5 square will kill you.

 

Also, do you know the positions that must be avoided at all cost?  If not, you did not read that one thoroughly (Answer: WPs c4-d4-e3, N's c3 and f3, B's f4 and d4 - For example - 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nf5 4.Nf3 d5?? - 4...Bb4 is correct - 5.Bf4! Intending we and Bd3 and White is significantly better.

 

Also, after 1.d4, the move 1...f5 should not be with intent on Stonewall.  Stonewall should be last resort.  After 1.d4 f5 2.g3 or 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3, White beats Black to the diagonal and Black must resort to the Classical (if Nh3 is played) or Stonewall (if Nf3 is played), but after something like 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3, Black should play 4...by intending 5...Bb7, putting the Bishop in an open diagonal.

 

If you are reading that book on the Stonewall like you should, it should require well over 150 to 200 hours of analysis.  We are talking a good month if you spend 5 hours a day daily on that book alone!

 

Also, do not compare the Bird to the Dutch.  They are nothing alike!  After 1.d4, Whitr has weakened e4, and that is the whole reason 1...d5, 1...f5, and 1...Nf6 are the three main replies.  They are the only moves that contest the weakened e4 square.

 

In Bird's Opening, Black has not committed to ...d5.  Therefore, e5 is not totally in White's control, and Bird's Opening is weaker than the Dutch.

Hate that dutch crap?! Weakens the kingside straight away but can't find a way to break through. Copy the fianchetto line attack... still lose. Does anybody have a refute to the dutch? Or at least a strong reply. Hate playing against. 

No, there is no refutation. AlphaZero shown us the Dutch is sound, whereas the beloved King’s Indian Defence is not. AlphaZero failed to win with the King’s Indian once. However AlphaZero did win with the Dutch.

Well the KID is obviously not a Solid opening. In sense that in exchange for the attack... the risk of defeat is increased? But is there an obvious way to attack the Dutch? Apparently is good to fianchetto, but then what? Often a crowded mess.

I also like to play f5 to d4 and c4 even, and find your advice very useful and fascinating!

Any more you might want to share about the ideas of the dutch? personally i dont like the stonewall too much and use it as a last resort if cant get a more open position relatively safely. 

 

 

Anybody that plays the Stonewall correctly uses it as a last resort.  After 1...f5, 2...Nf6, and 3...e6, the pawns severely block the c8-bishop.  Ideally, Black would like to play 4...b6 and 5...Bb7.  If White has played g3 and Bg2, even with a knight on f3, this is not possible.  He beat you to the diagonal, and this is why the fianchetto is viewed as best against e6-Dutch lines.  If he plays d4, c4, Nc3, and Nf3, Black should play 4...Bb4 and gets an Accelerated Nimzo, where f5 is pushed before Nf6 and Black is not forced to play Ne4 to get the pawn out.  He may eventually play Ne4 anyway, but on his own time.

Otherwise, Black should fianchetto his Bishop.  For example, if d4, c4, and an early e3 (with the Bishop outside on f4 or inside behind the pawn chain), then 4...b6!

 

If White does fianchetto on g2, and plays Nh3 instead of Nf3, Black should play a classical setup, not the Stonewall.  Of course, with Nf3, the Classical is also an option, so if you hate the Stonewall, which is not closed at all and Black is often ready for pawn pushes like f4 or g7-g5-g4.

 

Then there is the Leningrad, where g6, Bg7, and d6 are played instead of e6.  Totally different game.  White should play 8.d5 against all main responses (7...Qe8, 7...c6, and 7...Nc6) as they all threaten 8...e5, giving Black a strong e5-f5 pawn phalanx.  With 8.d5, White will take en passant if 8...e5.

 

Hope this helps.

Does help and inspired me to get the board out already and think about it!

Also nice to hear from a stronger player, that the urge to fiancetto my queenside bishop in the dutch is not just fooling around, but actually preferable in certain situations.  Now it seems very simple also why those english opening players place so often in g2 the bishop which I so much have feared and hated

That is "faulty reasoning" according to Aristotle. (Read Sophistical Refutations by Aristotle it documents almost all of the known fallacies). That is like saying a NASCAR driver will automatically be good at Toyko street racing which is obviously not true. The Alekhine is a semi-open type of opening whereas the Dutch is a semi-closed opening. Once again two completely different types of structures. Or in an analogy, A NASCAR to a formula one car.

 

thank you

 

The unfortunate answer is no, there is no easy way to attack the Dutch. Usually black does most of the assaults in particular on the kingside. White mostly has to just defend when needed while slowly gaining space on the queenside. 

If you are really having problems with such plans perhaps you should try the Staunton Gambit variation of the Dutch. In the older days, it used to be a refutation to the Dutch, however a defence has been worked out now where the position is equal, but double edged, in the sense both players have equal chances to win. Playing the Staunton Gambit will catch a lot of players off guard and will most likely lead to a win for white, but this is because the proper defence is hard to find. therefore, it is likely your best bet, but always remember that in the end the Staunton Gambit is no longer a refutation. 

Just another crazy person, for some reason this site attracts them in droves.  

  

Tulis gf3: Many strong players have came up to me and said I probably have a near gm understanding of that opening.Yet flummoxed by the dumb Dutch ok

I'd say some of our biggest problems are the awful weather, our complaintive/pessimistic nature, our railway system, our rather harsh sounding language and always losing football World Cup finals.

The Dutch is in fact a complex of openings with some rather different ideas. The three main ones are the Stonewall, Leningrad and Classical, along with all of the various Anti-Dutch moves and other sidelines. I think studying them all at once is much more likely to lead to confusion, which is what the book list (otherwise good) reflects.

One other book suggestion is Moskalenko's the Diamond Dutch, which has a good treatment of all three main variations from someone who has been a longtime practitioner, with his own ideas.

If you are interested in more closed positions and looking at maneuvering play, then the Stonewall makes sense. The Leningrad requires more tactical play early on and is more fluid; it also requires opening with 1...f5 while the Stonewall can be reached by other move orders, including 1...e6.

I think all of the three main Dutch defenses are very interesting, but will require rather deep study and it's probably better to pick the one that you are most interested in to focus on.

The Diamond Dutch has turned up quite a few times actually. I have not read it yet. I try to focus on the Leningrad Dutch overall, but I would also like to understand the classical better. Thanks for the advice though!

What happened to ThrillerFan?  I see his comments being blockquoted, but he's not around.  What happened?