Why play the Dutch?

I f I may add: After 1....f5 has at hand three pawn structures, they all offer black some chances for an attack against the enemy king:

 f5, e6, Be7, and later d6, and perhaps e6-e5 (Ilyin-Genevski setup),

f5, d6 , g6, Bg7, and perhaps later e7-e5 (Leningrad setup),

f5, e6, d5, Be7 (or even Bd6) (Stonewall setup).

Actually, some 'hybrids' are also possible, when black copies some ideas from other openings.

Example: If White plays c2-c4, d2-d4, and Nc3 early, then Black can pin the knight with Bb4, and then try to control the long diagonal a8-h1, with b6, Bb7.

This is a hybrid with Nimzo-Indian.

Another excellent choice (more sharp than the above) is: 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 e5, 3.d:e5 Ng4, 4.Bf4 Nc6, 5.Nf3 Bb4, 6.Nc3! Qe7, 7.Qd5 with better game, for instance: 7....f6, 8.e:f6 B:c3+, 9.b:c3 N:f6, 10.Qd3! d6, 11.g3! 0-0, 12.Bg2 Bg4, 13.Rb1! , and white has a big advantage.

I wouldn't go that far.  You misplayed that after g3.  Black has plenty of play for the pawn and incites major weaknesses in the White queenside.  He has ideas of Ne4-c5, Na5, and Be6 with enormous pressure on the White position.  Most of the time, White still has to give back a pawn due to the terrible pressure on the White position.  Then White has a weak pawn, but has some compensation due to the bishop pair.  You are not giving credit to Black.  Another reason why the Budapest Gambit will always be underrated.  People are simply too judgemental about the position.  Black comes out of the opening with a clear plan.  If you want mandelshtam, I will play you an unrated game with that line and we'll see how big White's advantage really is.

mandelshtam & KillaBeez: While I agree that white has more theoretical chances in that position, so does black. In fact, it is exactly that type of position that black is looking for.

This is exactly why the line I posted is great - it has no weaknesses for white, and black has to try to defend against the long-term advantage of the bishop pair. Of course, it also has no structural weaknesses for black, which is one point in favor of mounting a good defense.

mandelshtam, I generally try to play openings which are out of the style of what my opponent is searching for. It helps a lot that since I have been doing that for awhile, I most likely have more experience in these lines than my opponent as well.

"Play-for-win" Semi Slav defense

If you're really playing to win you must be prepared to play against the exchange slav.

Exchange variation means white play for draw

Exactly. The whole point of the thread is what to play as black when you are playing for a win.

I don't think playing for a win as black is a good idea all the time (first get equality then play the position) but sometimes you must, for example when a title is at stake, or if there is a winner-take-all type of tournament.

I think if white play for draw (supposing white is strong) there is, theoricaly, no way to win for black. So the threat should talk about the case where white "play for win" too.

I know you are better rated than me ozzie, but there are plenty of players I have read about who play for a win with Black, three off the top of my head immediately are Tal, Fischer and Larsen.  And Tal (I think it was him) said sometimes you have to give White a significant positional advantage to play for a win (i.e. the reasoning behind the d5 wedge in the Benoni, if I understood him correctly).

I would rather play for a win and crash and burn then play for a draw, it isn't in me to play for one unless I see a clear draw in sight.  But I never intend to create a draw from the beginning moves.  I want to win.  And I think that kind of mentality carries over to the board.  Playing aggressive moves trying to push through.  I know it doesn't always work, but at least the games are more fun!

I don't think of it as "playing for a draw". Instead, I think of it as "playing for equality".

What I usually do is play for equality in the opening, then try to keep something asymmetrical in the position. Could be bishop for knight, pawn structure imbalance, different half-open files, anything. This way, while the middlegame is not extremely fiery-tactical, there are still "things to play for". Very seldom do I "play for a draw". Everybody know this is a dangerous strategy.

But can you really consider a defense like KID playing for equality?  The positions are totally asymmetrical, like you said.  It seems like you are pushing for an advantage in quick development and counterattacking scheme. 

I do believe in some regards to playing for equality.  I have for a while thought about playing the Slow Italian for fun...or the Bishop's Opening. 

I don't play the KID on the black side. :-)

In the opening, I play for small and safe advantages on the white side, and equality on the black side.

In the middlegame, I try to understand the nature of the position, what my plan should be, what I think my opponent's best and most dangerous plans are. Then I try to back it all up with tactics.

I don't want to leave the impression that I give away free half-points whenever I play black... It is difficult to play all aspects of the game well, and I try to take advantage of inaccuracies wherever and whenever I can. While minimizing my own.

Why play the Dutch??

Well, why not play the Dutch?  As a rule, they are very nice, warm, intelligent and congenial people.  Even Hein Donner.

Yes!!!! It's a great defence. I usually play it on d4-c4-Nf3 opening for white. In the last month I played the Ilijn-Zhenesky sistem and the Stonewall with Bd6. I think this defence will be improved  and will be played more and more. 

I can say that another fighting opening is Benoni

I have a nice Dutch game that is almost over.  Will be mate in a couple.  As soon as it is over, I will post it.

Misplayed? IF one can play g3, Bg2, and unpunished directly, THEN the center is better controlled than in schemes with e3, Be2 (Bd3).

In fact, the line is much better then the older scheme e3, Be2, which indeed gives black counterchances. Kramnik played that line - with g3, Bg2 - once and won. The point is that the doublepawn c3-c4 is not on an open file, black cannot win one of these pawns. The double pawn gives white firm control of the center, together with bishop pair. White has many positional threats, Nf3-d4, (and perhaps to b5), Rb1, Bg2-d5. White simply dominates the center. I have excellent experiences with this line.

The other variant, with Nb1-d2, gives white a safe - less double-edged than in the above variation - and nice game, but black has no weaknesses and is no pawn down.

I am talking about Black's point of view.  You played White fine, but you did not incorporate the standard maneuvers that Black should immediately employ.  Natural moves by Black lead to a disadvantage in that line.  But if you incorporate the correct variations, the position is unclear and double-edged.

Beez: "unclear and double-edged" - this seems like it is ripe for a Rybka-style analysis. I believe that this type of position is a big advantage for white, it's just that I don't typically play directly into my opponent's preparation. Let's face it, if white can play this line, get a big advantage easily, and win easily, then the Budapest would be more or less refuted. The whole point of the opening is that black gets compensation for the pawn and counter-chances, etc.

Without high-level analysis to back it up, all we are left with is words and opinions, of which both sides have many. With computer analysis though, one side will be "proven" correct.

:-) I don't have Rybka. Or Crafty. Or Shredder. Or Fritz. Can one of you two do this analysis?