This is not the Dutch. The Dutch begins 1.d4 f5.
An opening is defined by the moves of both sides. 1...f5 is not the Dutch against whatever white plays. It is only the Dutch when 1.d4 is played. This could have transposed into the Dutch if white played an early d4, but the ...e6 and d3 moves made sure that it would not transpose into anything mainstream. The opening of this game was nothing more than 'the English.'
ah..ok I've learned thanks for your comments - I guess this line is the English - Anglo-Dutch defense then correct?
ah..ok I've learned thanks for your comments - I guess this line is the English - Anglo-Dutch defense then correct?
Oh, okay. There we go. That seems like a strange name, but I guess that's what people call it.
There are many ways to get to a "Dutch" defense. 1.d4 f5 is one, but so is 1.c4 e6 2.d4 f5.
It is even possible to start as one opening (KID) and end up transposing in the middlegame into a Dutch, or other opening systems.
I offer that it is the Middlegame pawn skeleton (structure) that defines a system, not always just the first moves.
Yes, like I said, this could transpose into a Dutch proper with an early c4. Things can still transpose in the early middlegame as there is a lot of charted territory nowadays. However, the classification of a game is defined by the moves, not the pawn structure. To simplify it to this extent ignores the transpositional nature of chess openings.
you say in some of your early moves, (like the king move) that you've seen players play it but you didn't know why. If you study games/openings your supposed to look at the idea behind it. If you don't, you do not know how to exploit it correctly. in one of the lines of the french opening, white's goal is to occupy the g4 square with a queen. Blacks goal is to get a queenside attack going.. You should learn the idea's behind openings otherwise you have no clue how to play it!
You can look openings at wikipedia, it's very interesting to find out the goals behind english, ruy lopez and french and stuff
I offer that it is the Middlegame pawn skeleton (structure) that defines a system, not always just the first moves.
However, the classification of a game is defined by the moves, not the pawn structure.
Actually, there is no hard and fast "classification" rules. ECO uses one system and NIC uses another. One system uses move order and others use pawn structure.
Absolutely, but I was referring to ECO, since this is the classification used by the vast majority of chess databases/literature/websites/etc.
Neither classifies by move order, and this is the point I was getting out. ECO classifies by position. This is because it allows for transposition. Nowhere in the ECO is there the same position listed under two separate headings.
I think classifying by pawn structure is overly-simplifying. The pawn structure defines what type of position will arise, but it is the placement of all the pieces in the position which define the game. Given that we have a good system of defining by position, I don't see a need for classification by pawn structure.
you say in some of your early moves, (like the king move) that you've seen players play it but you didn't know why. If you study games/openings your supposed to look at the idea behind it.
You can look openings at wikipedia, it's very interesting to find out the goals behind english, ruy lopez and french and stuff
well, I looked at the game, and as I was looking I still have no idea - well I have somewhat an idea, is that it prevents any check by the light bishop - so it almost seems like a philador ( i think that's what it's called) type move..
Thanks for all your replies - though no_one game me much game analysis - I did get a lot of insight on classification.
I don't play the dutch often - in fact just a couple times in the last few days - in this blitz game I actually won (some blunders by my opponent helped)- but my question is was this a sound line for the dutch? I just went by memorization on about the first 6 moves or so from a turn-based game I was playing