Possibly.
On reviling the Dutch
Sort:
Here is a link to the DUTCH Theme Tournament
http://www.chess.com/tournament/dutch-theme-tournament
It will be a recurring tournament for Dutch enthusiasts.
For info on the dutch, visit GM Williams Videos: http://www.chess.com/video/library?keyword=classical+dutch&author=Ginger_GM&players=&opening=&skill_level=&category=
I know this is an old thread, but I still had to comment. I think it's important to remember that computer evaluations have hurt certain openings' reputations.
However, computer evaluations are actually not recommendations from the computer on what to play.
My understanding is that the computer plays out moves against itself in its calculations and then assigns number values (+ or - however many 1/100's of a pawn) -- and those number values that it assigns tell it what move to play.
Those number values are merely a part of its calculations.
Many of those number values cannot be tested against any "objective" standard, because chess hasn't been solved yet.
Rather, the computer that beats other computers the most (and beats humans the most) is regarded to be the best computer (and rightfully so), and therefore, we tend to regard the numbers that it uses in its internal calculations as more "accurate."
However, since chess isn't solved, we don't know just how accurate those evaluations are on a move by move basis. We just know that certain computers that assign these numbers move-by-move tend to win a lot. But that just means that those move-by-move evals are working in terms of giving the computer moves that allow the computer to win (and some programs don't even use numbers -- like Leela etc). We're judging the individual move-by-move evals by the end-of-game result. At a philosophical level... that's not an accurate way to judge those numbers. And we have to remember that if chess was solved, then there wouldn't even be a number. It would just be "winning" or "losing."
So, why do we even pay attention to the numbers?
Numerous grandmasters have affirmed that the computer evaluations tend to be pretty good (and at times very good)... in the judgement of those grandmasters. It's their opinion.
And yeah... those numbers do seem to be pretty good... especially when they lead to a huge material advantage later on.
However, it's still "our" assessment as chess players that give the number its weight as being "accurate" or not. We have nothing to compare that number to. And yes, the computers win... but they can win even when they give themselves bad numbers... eventually due to human error, they start giving themselves good numbers again... but our valuing or not valuing those numbers are purely based on the computer's win/loss record against other computers and on our opinions.
There still has been no definitive assessment on much of chess.
With that in mind, when you look at the Dutch, it would depend on human assessment.
I am not that good at chess right now, so I don't know enough to make that assessment personally.
I will say, though, that the King's Indian might be regarded as an inferior opening by many grandmasters if Fischer and Kasparov didn't play it.
And even Kasparov and Judit Polgar turned against it later on. But then people like Radjabov and Nakamura revived it again.
Now, if Fischer hadn't used it so much, would Kasparov have used it as much? And would have Polgar used it so much? And if those two then didn't use it as much (because of Fischer not using it as much), would Radjabov and Nakamura have committed themselves to it and found new ways to bring it back?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And if Fischer hadn't used it -- and if this had caused a ripple effect of others not using it -- then computer evals would have hurt its reputation even more.
And so, the KID might not be so well regarded right now.
But because humans put so much time into it, it's considered a legitimate opening.
Imagine if all of that time had been spent on the Dutch?
Maybe it's reputation would be considered the same, or maybe people would love it (and maybe people would ignore computer evals just like with the KID)...
To figure out what would have happened had everyone put the work into the Dutch that has gone into the KID... well, it would require someone to spend a lot of time on the opening themselves and then formulate an educated opinion.
And that is something that no computer can do.
So, if you want to use the Dutch, then use the Dutch!
If it ends up being "bad," then maybe you'll learn more from the experience of finding out why it's "bad" than you would have if you had used a "good" opening.
But if the Dutch ends up being "good" for you, then you just might have a very large edge over your opponents!
(oh, and as a side note... if computer evals aren't recommendations for humans, then why should we use them? Simple -- the computer evals do mirror GM opinion in many areas, so those of us who aren't GM's can use them as a helpful tool (and GM's find them helpful too -- because the computer will notice some things that we don't)... but we shouldn't let the computers dominate our opinions... the evals are just a number that they use to determine their next move... and as said earlier, we have no way to determine the accuracy of the eval apart from direct results and our opinions...)
Dutch has a bad reputation, see figure 4 (a)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf
That does not mean it is not playable: it has been played by Botvinnik, Bronstein...
Even Carlsen has played the Stonewall repeatedly.
Below grandmaster level the opening does not matter at all.
tygxc -- are you responding to me?
If so, then you misunderstood me.
1) I never said that the Dutch has a good reputation.
2) I actually know that the Dutch has a bad reputation among most high level grandmasters.
3) I figured that Alpha Zero didn't like it. That's also not relevant to what I said 
So, your comment is kind of irrelevant to what I said.
But you're 100% right in everything that you said!
And if you weren't responding to me, then ignore this.
Could be easier for White vs the Stonewall. Seems more strategically straightforward. Exchanging the DSBs looks to increase winning chances with dark square strength that Black has a hard time matching. Petrosian - Korchnoi 1946, Kasparov-Short 1987, Zsuzsa P-Smyslov 1993 & Kamsky-Radjabov 2013 appear some examples.