Why not stonewall on e4, d3, c4 or e5, d6, c5?

Why can't the stonewall be on c4, d3 and e4 instead of d4, e3 and f4?

It can be but is bull shit cause the pawn on f3 is much better on f2.

f3 is an awful, useless move and even with the pawn at f4 the setup is unpromising and fell out of fashion decades ago (see Kmoch's book on pawn play).

Yeah, there are structures that play c4-d3-e4, so this is already an idea.  Check English Opening ideas.

In the Botvinnik setup, White does play c4-d3-e4 and fianchettos the king's bishop. However, there is no reason to play f3. If Black plays e5 and f5, White can usually play f4 directly.

I agree with AKAL1. The setup described *is* used, but it goes by the name of Botvinnik formation.

k thx

i searched up the botvinnik variation and i feel it holds a lot for white. thx for mentioning it.

By the way, I recently came across mention of both these pawn structures in a book, and both were called Stonewalls! I believe one was called the Kingside Stonewall, the other the Queenside Stonewall, though unfortunately I don't remember which book it was. It was a book on pawn structures and a book that was recommended on this forum in some thread.

The book is called pawn structure chess or something by Andrew Soltis

Except it's not, and it's not.

But the OP likes this kind of answer... these forums sometimes...

If you play for a botvinnikformation f3 is a mistake. White block the bishop at g2 with f3. One of the keyideas of thr botvinnik is to get in f4, e4 or b4 depending on the situation but why use two moves to get it to f4

The move f2-f3 appears in a lot of d4/c4 openings, but it usually happens only *after* black has made a certain commitment with the dark squared bishop. If black's DSB has been traded (as in the Saemisch Nimzo Indian), you can move the pawn to f3, support the e4 square, and stick your own bishop on the e3 or f2 square (covering the weakened dark squares around your king). If black's king bishop gets fianchettoed (as in the Saemisch King's Indian), it can't easily go out to the a7-g1 diagonal, and it doesn't make your king terribly unsafe to castle kingside under those conditions.....but - again - your own dark squared bishop basically always ends up hanging out on e3 and covering those weakened squares. 

My main issue with this whole idea is that the stonewall attack itself isn't all that great, so I don't know why one would tie oneself in knots to play a slightly worse version.

There are systems where the early f3 is played, such as 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3, where the bishop is not yet committed. 

I feel like the move ...g6 basically commits the bishop....if you're NOT going to play ...Bg7 at that point, you've probably made a serious strategic error. 

look at my rating, im just looking for a decetn answer.

Most GM games at that point play 6...Bg7 instead.

RIght - it's some random Gruenfeld sideline. My point was that the bishop will end up going to g7 in that position, so f3 isn't premature there.

My thoughts were rather that it takes away some central control from the king knight.  Here is a time when it is seen at move 2!