On reviling the Dutch

I started playing the Dutch before I understood any advanced strategic concepts - I opened a book, looked up some first moves for black, and decided that I would play the French against e4 and the Dutch against d4. After the first month, I quit the French and never came back, but made a life long friend in the Dutch and never looked back. 

A couple years on, I've learned a lot more about d4 f5, but what I've learned more than anything else is that it has a *horrible* reputation. My old friend is considered - at best - 'that thing crazy people do when they want to hack', and, at worst, 'nigh unplayable'. What's going on here!? We're not sacrificing material out of the opening or creating indefensible positional holes. If white tries to attack us, our counterpunch is notoriously strong, and, if white tries to hold solid, our enterprising first move stakes out a powerful claim to the e4 square, and, we may not be better, but I seriously doubt we're worse. Mikhail Botvinnik wasn't known for picking out super-risky opening lines, after all!

So what gives? Is it just the nuances of fashion? Are we afraid chess teachers will rap our knuckles for moving the f pawn? Is it that thing Petrosian said 50 years ago? Why is it that the Dutch seems to have the worst reputation of any non-gambit main line!?

Oh, and if your comment is "Don't study openings, play classical stuff", you're 3 years too late, so save your energy.

The problem I see is the Anti Dutch stuff. From a white perspective, I often wish after 1c4 f5, I could have my first move back and play 1d4 so I can play 2Bg5

The juggling act I see, with developing an opening repertoire is to have good chances against both weaker, stronger and stodgy players.

Yeah the dutch is fine. I played it a while as i liked the stonewall but stopped because i played against guys Much lower rated then me that answers f5 with f4 and i really struggled to get something against this symmetrical stuff

The Dutch is still used by top GM's today including Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura. I personally like the Dutch myself as it seems that black is opting to play for a win at a high risk.

Newengland: Your review of the Dutch is essentially its reputation "play it for a high risk win with black", but that's not been my experience. My experience is that there are some lines that offer black an opportunity to enter crazyville if she wants it, but those lines are easy enough to sidestep if you don't snatch pawns, kick bishops, and otherwise invite massive complications. There are lots of opportunities to play quietly, improve your pieces, and expand one square at a time. Your perception of the opening is exactly what puzzles me - it's NOT all about high risk high reward, I like getting a playable position with a good center!

Ziggy, it's funny that you mention feeling snagged by the anglo-Dutch from the white side - because I go 1.c4 e6 from the black side to avoid what I find to be irksome structural differences (so if they go e4, I have a Maroczy, and if they go d4 I have a stonewall....and if they *insist* on an English, there's nothing wrong with c5, g6, and going to sleep)

Drevland: The symmetrical stuff always throws me off balance too....it's not that it's particularly 'good', but it kills the e5 break, makes opening the f file unattractive, and - unlike all of the other 'punishing' lines - actually asks black why on earth the pawn is on f5. I usually go ...a5 as early as I can and see if reserving space on the Q side will promise anything. Also, if white tries to press, they WILL be sorry...the position is objectively equal, even if it's subjectively difficult.

Gatita - if you've never been suckered into something like this and moaned in agony at the error, you've never played the Dutch =P

Qh5+ was supposed to be on the board too - sometimes the diagram is screwy

"Your perception of the opening is exactly what puzzles me - it's NOT all about high risk high reward, I like getting a playable position with a good center!"

Just because you're getting a good center, doesn't mean you ain't taking risks 

Yeah i found out playing my lower rated opponents i beat them very easily in pretty much any opening that exist exept for the double stonewall. I probably could have learned it better but i play the QGD mainlines now as black

I've played the Dutch quite a lot on here, but have recently stopped.

I found myself too often getting sound positions early and then running out of ideas. There is little margin for error in my opinion.

You could consider to play the QGD or Slav then.

Since they're being mentioned so frequently, I'll give Alison's c-class primer on meeting the anti-Dutch systems.....I cried a lot of tears before learning these lessons.

NE7's primer on the Staunton...

I've played the main line slav a little (4...dxc4, Bf5 etc), and I really enjoy the positions I get with lots of passed pawns on the Q side and a little home on b4....the problem for me is pet systems - at the patzer level (where I am), everyone and their grandma plays the London, so they *really* want you to play ...d5 and let them play the only position they've analyzed. Hence, I go ...f5 and force them to play my pet system.

I played the Dutch for about 20 years, Leningrad, Stonewall and Classical lines. I gave up. Too unstable and your center has a tendency to collapse if you aren't careful. White's space advantage leaves little room for maneuver and you end up placing all hope in a King-side canopener attack.

I encounter the dutch stonewall a lot as white.  It's vastly more popular at club level than grandmaster, I suspect because its got a defined strategy and it's easy to learn, and you can play it as white too, which club players do and GMs don't.

I find it fairly hard to crack, I think because the black players know what they are doing and are experienced with the resulting positions.

At the elite level, some play it but its not that common.  For the club player that pretty much irrelevant.

I find it interesting that you initially chose French and Dutch.   By any chance did you also chose CLOSED Sicilian if forced to play Sicilian?   

Those were all my choices back in them thar days and I stuck with the Dutch although eventually abandoned the French.   My motivation for all three was that they pretty much eliminated the need to know a gazillion other openings.  If you play them your opponents have to go along with it and you don't have to be prepped for dozens of other possibilities. 

My attitude is that if the Dutch was good enough for Botvinnik, it's good enough for me!

As usual, John Watson sums it up well:

The Dutch Defence is a traditional and essentially sound opening which nevertheless requires precise treatment on Black's part. At the grandmaster level, therefore, it is primarily the province of loyal specialists. But for the average player and even the master, the Dutch can be a particularly effective weapon. In part, that's due to a potential imbalance in knowledge between opponents: most 1 d4 and 1 c4 players will allot only limited time to study of the Dutch, placing a higher priority upon much more frequently-played openings such as the Queen's Gambit and Indian systems. This situation suits Black, all the more so if he applies himself to mastering the general ideas and concrete variations of 1...f5.