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.
You're missing the son of a bitch Qe1 move. White has a big attack for just a pawn.
I looked at your line, Aquarius, and it's pretty promising for white - my standard Dutch move when I'm not exactly sure where to go is Qe8 as it tends to be useful on a couple of levels, but Qe8 gets crushed by the exact attack you describe. Nbd7, Re8, Bg4 and other 'normal' moves also fail.....but when I tossed the question over to the engine, it found another thematic Dutch move that I hadn't tried - ...Na6! which prepares both the ...c5 break AND an infiltration with Nb4 - if white continues the attack without paying attention, black can ignore the threat, and start bouncing around with the knight on the queenside.
Thanks for pointing that one out! Now I can add the line with Qe1 Na6 into my preparation file and embarrass this otherwise backbreaking idea.
Chastity - I did NOT play the closed Sicilian as white, but I also didn't play the open Sicilian because I played exclusively the KIA at the beginning. I did try some of this junk for a while - trying to outbrain my opponents, but I don't think I ever did very well.
IP - I love Watson's opening books....he gets some things wrong, disregards a few lines that can actually be very dangerous, and is necessarily dated, but that tome is the first place I go any time I see a move I don't recognize. It's a genuinely remarkable piece of chess writing that basically anyone can benefit from. Nicely quoted, and definitely my sentiment on the Dutch. The Stonewall in particular has that 'baited breath' quality that you discuss...it's like Dwarves versus goblins in the Hobbit, and we're playing the goblins!
Jezebel - great comments as always. The main reason I stuck to the Dutch at the beginning probably was just because it's this claustrophobic opening that wants to carve a path on the f file, crack white open, and either win material or get hashtag MATE. And the reason I stick to it now is just that I know it. The first time I managed to beat whatever computer chess program I was playing against it WAS with the Stonewall attack, and some 'theoretical' (but tremendously hacky) knight sacrifice into Qh4# - I felt like the next Judit Polgar when I realized I had 'outsmarted' a computer (on easy) using my mad 1.f4 skillz. I quit the bird pretty early, but I've definitely made the d4-f4-e3 wall more than a couple of times. I'll quit the Dutch if I ever manage to get to a level where I feel positionally inferior on a regular basis, but you're absolutely right: My opponents are not chess engines or grandmasters, they're club players who - in all likelihood - have never prepared anything against the 'garbage' Dutch defense.
Yeah the Dutch can't be reviled!
Some things are lost causes.
However, it is very noble of you.
Fighting for a lost cause.
Jezebel - great comments as always.
You are most kind Alison.
I think your choice of the Dutch is perfectly sensible, you know it and are happy with the positions you get.
And you get away from the most common openings that players are likely to know. Its quite common for club players to play openings that are way more eccentric than the Dutch and are quite unsound as a way of avoiding theory. I have in mind things like 1g4 and 1d4 b5.
Openings that are trouble if your opponent knows what they are doing and fundamentally are not much good are to be avoided.
I also find myself laughing at players who play the Sokolsky, 1b4, as a way of avoiding theory. And then I know it better than they do, which happens more often that it has any right to.
I've definitely heard that I should play classically with black until reaching rating x (some say 1600, some say 1800, some say 2000), but I have two things to say about that. The first is practical; classical opening lines have been played forever and they go DEEP. If someone has any preparation or experience, it's almost certain that it's in the classical lines.. With white, my record against the Benoni is pretty bad (because it's rare), but I could snap out the first 10 moves of the QGA blind drunk with no errors, because everyone and their pet monkey takes the pawn on the live chess server. So that's the practical reason - why step into someone else's comfort zone just because of a dogmatic idea that n00bs should play exactly THESE opening lines and no others?
The second reason is purely psychological/emotional - I get SO SICK of staring at these two positions that I could cry. Yes I know there are plenty of chances for black, yes I know I would get used to them, but I find them nauseating, and I don't want to play classically until I'm at a level where I don't have to look at them very often.
A lot of newbies play QGA and don't know what they are doing. It's a decent opening really.
I used to quite like the dutch, but since playing the kingsIndian find a lot of the positions quite ugly. In the kingsindian the f-pawn doesn't usually get pushed until the centre is closed.
If look at Kasparov's games in queens gambit declined will see a lot of unexpected ideas. His books on matches with Karpov particularly useful for that. Understanding an opening isn't about memorising a sequence of moves but more about knowing key ideas.
Just about any opening is playable, so if like dutch stick with it.
Well what is your idea for black?
If you plan to revile the dutch.
You will have to find an improving idea for the above sad position.
If people played the dutch defense a lot I would switch over to playing 1.d4.
Sadly not many people let me get into the above amazing white position.
X_Player_J_X
You should play classically [which seems to mean symetricly] with black until a certain rating?
I have not heard that, and I have read more chess books and magazines than I can count. And I used to be a chess coach, of kids yes, but still.
I have been playing differeing openings since I heard Magnus Carlsen's chess tips, which include playing a variety of openings to broaden ones understnading of the game. I figure he is worth listening to.
I think club players worst mistakes in chosing openings is blindly copying their hero and therefore playing openings they don't understand and playing incredibly eccentric openings, which almost always means objectively weak, openings so they avoid theory.
And I think one should at least get some experience with openings that were once the rage at the top level, like the kings gambit and QGA, as part of ones learning.
more than a 1000 games tell me that after 4..c6, black is OK.
your short posts seem to contain almost the same amount of rubbish as your longer ones. good work!
lol
You call my post rubbish when you are basing your whole agruement on a sample size of 1,000 games?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHH
Yeah go ahead and put all your faith in the move "4...c6".
Black is not OK!
White has a small advantage which he will try to nature into a win.
Isn't that just a normal, solid, respectable Stonewall?
No!
The above position is Dutch Defense/Stonewall Variation/Modern Variation
The position evaluation is +/= 0.40
The position is not equal because black has long term weaknesses.
White does not!
The Dutch Defense is a playable line for low level & middle level players because the evaluation is not really a factor.
In higher level chess they play more precisely.
It is hard to draw or win a position which is not equal!
Which is why high level players only play it once and a while.
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.
ChastityMoon: Well-spotted! That's a big part of the reason I often play the Dutch, French, and Closed Sicilian.
There's also something comfortably cluttered about those openings. They aren't jammed closed, but breathe just enough for some nice asymmetrical tension to build, then blow apart into something else.