A deeper understanding of the Dutch Stonewall?

Hi all,

I am looking for some advice on the Dutch Stonewall defence, and answers to 1.d4 in general really.

To give the background, I am rated somewhere around 1200 - 1300 on this site, and as white I favour sharp tactical gambit openings like the Kings or Evans. I'm also experimenting with the Danish (the double pawn sacrifice line) but that may be too crazy even for me! :)

As black I am usually content to follow my opponent into any 1.e4 line they care to choose, as I have been working to improve my tactical play and feel I am reasonable in most of those lines. Obviously with my current rating I have a lot to still learn in the open games but against players of my level I do hold my own pretty well in e4 games.

1.d4 is a completely different story. I just don't feel like I have a clear understanding of the positions that can arise from the most common lines (it seems like inevitably 1.d4 will arrive at a QGD line sooner or later LOL)

In pursuit of an answer to 1.d4 I have been playing the Dutch Stonewall defence. It appeals to me because it is relatively simple to learn, as you are simply moving towards a set position, and I was assured that it was a very sharp, tactical defence.

In practice, I have been finding that I seem to end up in extremely positional closed games with all the pieces operating behind firmly locked pawn structures. Is this normal in the Dutch Stonewall or am I playing it wrong?

Ultimately I feel like I am paying the price for knowing the moves of the defence without understanding the deeper reasons behind them. When I play King's Gambit, I know why the knight comes to f3 under the pawn, and I know why the pawn sacrifice is going to claim the centre and generate an attack. I understand that after the gambit has been accepted, castling will put my rook onto a semi open file, saving me a tempo, etc etc... I'm obviously not claiming to be an expert in the KG but I feel like I know what the moves are achieving and so if my opponent goes "off-book" early I can work from these broad principles and arrive at a reasonable plan.

I have no such understanding of the Dutch Stonewall position, and this often leads me to making blind shuffling pieces around behind my pawns in confusion in the hope that my opponents attack will be flawed and I will then be able win through a counter-attack.

Can anyone give me some pointers as to the broader aims of the Dutch Stonewall, or recommend a different defence to 1.d4 that will give me a more e4 feeling game, that I can understand more easily?

The thing with the Dutch is that, yes it does fight for the win from the opening, but it requires very deep understanding of the game from a positional stand point. The game, as you have found out, can become closed and Black usually find itself in a cramped position; not a good thing for a beginner or lower level player that may not be the best in positional games. I fall into this category of not being the best at positional games; it is only recently, by studying and actually playing d4 openings myself that I have developed a little understanding of playing for position rather than always trying for tactics. I have played the Dutch in the past although I think you would be best serve if you search for forum topics on the Dutch as it has been discussed before and probably by player better than myself (so what I can give you is not the best advice). Anyway, you already found out a lot about the Dutch as you have said in your post. Other than knowing it better, you understand that it can lead you to extremely closed position, etc...and that is not to your strengths at the moment. One of two things can be done. 1) Learn to be more positional, or 2) Find another opening that will better serve you right now and learn the Dutch another time. Option 1 takes lots of studying and patience as there's not online help for it; tactics training doesn't usually work on positional play. I can suggest a book that could help you learn the game a little better - The Amateur's Mind by IM Silman. It is the only book I have ever read on chess and it definitely helped me in understanding chess better.

DEAR  MANIC MINER,  I TOO WOULD LOVE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE  MODERN DUTCH  STONEWALL DEFENSE VARIATION

I AM ALSO  INTERESTED  IN THE QUEENS PAWN OPENING,  THE  STONEWALL ATTACK VARIATION FOR  WHITE.  WHEN I GO TO LOOK FOR  DVDS, THEY SEEM TO HAVE MANY ON THE DUTCH DEFENSE STONEWALL VARIATION DEFENSE FOR BLACK, BUT

THEY  DON'T  FOR THE  STONEWALL  ATTACK FOR  WHITE.

I JUST  PURCHASED 10 TRAING DVDS FRLOM  A MINISTER  BERNARD BAKER  AT HIS  SITE   FORKED KING .COM

AND 10 MORE FROM  ,  A  KEVIN BUTLER(WHO PUT TOGETHER A GREAT

FREE CHESS TRAINING SITE,  thechesswebsite@gmail.com.

HE ALSO  SOLD  THE  45  LESSON   TRAINING DVD'S WHICH ARE  SHOWN ON HIS  SITE WHICH IS A 10 DVD FULL SET(THIS COVERS  MANY CHESS AREAS AND OPENINGS.

  MANIC , CHECK OUT THE  WEBSITE  AND PLEASE  MENTION MY NAME LON BOTH  TGHAT  RECOMMENDED  THEM TO  YOU

MY  EMAIL IS  antne003@Verizon.net,  i  am a 63 year old disabled from stroke retired  police chief

   read my profile and see my photo albums on chess.com  user/member name 

kis  antne003.                       good  studying   ANTHONY E.  SOLIS  JR.

                                         FROM THE  JERSEY  SHORE AREA

Eric C: I am pretty open to learning new openings, and am certainly not wedded to the Dutch at all... What answers to 1.d4 would you recommend that might lead to more tactical, open games? (I realise that against d4 there is a limit to how open the game can get, but anything that can avoid the cramped locked pawns that tend to arise from the symmetrical responses would be welcome)

Hammerschlag - Thank you for a highly detailed response. I'm somewhat encouraged to know that I'm not just playing it incorrectly, and that it really does lead to the kind of extremely closed positions I have been finding myself in. In a funny way I've enjoyed my dalliance with the dutch as it certainly produces very different situations to those I am used to, and its been interesting seeing how much variety there is to chess. At times it was played a whole different game!

I'll check out Silman's book, as it sounds right up my street!

Well, the Stonewall shouldn't give you a "cramped" position, not in the center at least. Also, quite often it does give you an aggressive tactical game, especially against players below 1700 or so (2000 in turn-based). If your opponents block the position, then you will be equal and have no problems. Perhaps you could post a couple of your games with the Stonewall so that we could see what the problems are.

Edit: If you think that your position is cramped because your e-pawn is backward, surely the White has the same problem. Also, that pawn is often able to advance later on.

 I think we'll both agree that pretty much any opening can become closed or open depending on how play continues. However, with 1300s, opening of the position isn't something that happens easily unless they are of mind that comes natural to playing chess, which I find is not most people (I've had to study pretty hard to get to where I am and I am not very high in my opinion). Since he is not positional in nature, if the position becomes so that more positional play is required, he will find himself lost in most instances; having equal positions does not necessarily mean the game will end up in a draw and in most cases at the level of the OP, (and mine) games do not end up drawn & this is why I play for the win every game (and a relatively small number of my games end in draws).

Since most people here have already given you advice, both general and specific, about the Dutch (which I also happen to use as my only response to 1.d4 these days), I’ll be much more general and ask you this all-important (in my opinion anyway) question:

Do you like the Stonewall Dutch?

Your answer to this question should help you determine how much you want to study and whether or not you want to stick with it.

At any level, there will almost always be more to know, more to study, and lots of stuff you still don’t know. It’s really a matter of whether you feel comfortable playing your choice openings. And of course, some openings are “easier” to pick up and play than others. No opening can be really considered “easy”, but I mean that some are more natural while others take practice and time to use effectively. Everyone’s different, but I would say that the Dutch is one of those more unnatural openings to learn. The King’s Gambit (which I also like to play as White) is much more natural in my opinion. Both are aggressive, but one is more natural than the other.

As a final note, it’s probably worth mentioning that 1.d4 tends to lead to closed games, one way or another. That’s the nature of the move, in sharp contrast to 1.e4, which is usually, but not always, open. I can relate to you; I’ve never really liked playing Black against 1.d4. I know every chess player should understand how to play both open and closed positions, but closed positions were just never as fun as open ones! For me, the Dutch is my way of saying, “You’ve taken me out of my comfort zone; now let me take you out of yours!” The Dutch is one way to guarantee that you won’t see a QGD or some sort obscure line of an Indian defense. The drawback to the Dutch is that if you don’t feel at home with it, you might misplay it by playing too passively or playing too aggressively. (In my experience, passivity has been the problem. I don’t think I’ve played Ne4 very often, even though that is quite common in master games. I’m still a work in progress!)

Anyway, good luck! :)

Conzipe, the plans for black are good, but they're not easy to achieve in practice. If white is playing correctly he will be trying to trade off dark squared bishops, probably with Ba3 though maybe with Bf4, and slowly neutralize black's chances then occupy the dark squares. On top of this black always has to consider white central expansion with f3 and e4, especially if a knight is on e4 as f3 wins a tempo. Tactically this can be annoying to achieve, but I think it's more annoying for black because his whole attack relies on e4 never working, every move he plays.

However I don't know that for a fact, I only know a little theory. Although the stonewall is supposed to avoid theory, I actually think that it would be important to know the concrete lines, because most of black's advantages are dynamic in nature, which doesn't mix well with the need to maneouver the pieces in a closed position. The e4 square is just to help the attack, but he can never be totally secure there. He's playing under the clock, and by the time you get the light bishop to h5 white probably owns the dark squares. Therefore I think black should fianchetto and maybe think about an eventual ...c5, with interesting play, though pretty different from a normal stonewall.

I think that the simplest answer to your problem is to play the Q.G.A., which will give you open games in response to 1. d4. Check out the games in a database under ECO D27. I use it all the time. The Stonewall became popular during the 1960s when the Soviet school pushed it, but it's out of fashion these days. And good luck to you!

Hi! I think ManoWar's advice is good....if I remember correctly, the QGA was used in matches for the World Championship between Botvinnik and Petrosian (1963)...

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54394

Be careful with your move order in the Dutch...it seems that in some move orders, White develops his King knight to h3, where it is better suited against the Stonewall...

Here is a nice balanced game where you see both sides carrying out their respective plans....

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1560546

Good luck!

GM Roman D. has a video covering his Universal System against the Dutch that looks very good for White.

I play the Old Benoni Defense or the Modern Benoni Defense against 1.d4. The Benoni Defense can also lead into the Benko Gambit.

@Musikamole

'Dzindzi' is one of the best examples of a crappy author. His books and videos all contain holes large enough for a sumo wrestler to walk through. Often, he dismisses lines too easily, and even more often, he ignores the most critical replies altogether.

His book, 'Chess Openings for White, explained', is so bad that it blew up my trash can after I threw it away, while its companion volume 'Chess Openings for Black, explained', while much better than COFWE, ignores too many sources to give even a half decent coverage of the lines he give. I have seen many misleading titles on opening books over the years, but never have I seen publishers try to sell vomit under the title of one.

For several examples of sparkling attacks in the Stonewall, see this article:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/openings-for-tactical-players-dutch-defense

Actually, the way I like to trade bishops for white is to play b2, Bb2, and then Qc1, avoiding a4, though this does take time, but I think it's very well worth it as the bishop is a huge attacking piece.

"Also in the stonewall there aren't really any "concrete lines" to study it's much more about understanding the positions that arises and key positional themes since neither side has any good way to force early complications. However this is only true for the stonewall, if you play any other dutch system there are a lot of variations where white can immediately try to bash black and therefore you have to learn a lot more. And black actually does very well in a slow maneuvering game in the stonewall."

While it's true that there are many positional themes, making it hard to go tactically wrong, I think black does need to try to play dynamically before white neutralizes things or gets play on the queenside, because he's the one who's weak in the long term.

It is precisely because both sides can make such good cases with their plans (one of the hard parts is choosing which one, and when, and in reaction to which plan of your opponent!), that it'd be interesting to see the concrete lines to know whose plan works (better) and who doesn't. I put my money on white, only because of his long term advantages and I get the feeling his position is solid enough to withstand black's play. Maybe I'll look into it one day, try to find out the answer myself. Black does seem to have many resources to keep things unclear. I think I'm just biased because I don't like to base the soundness on one's position on many dynamic ideas (maybe that's not the right term; I know black has to make slow maneouvers but would you agree black is seeking more dynamic short term play compared to white?), I'd prefer to do that with static things like squares, like the one white gets on e5.

Actually I think of the Stonewall as a kind of a 1.d4 French. The Black's positional and tactical ideas are not that complex and don't take a genius to understand, even though some care is needed. Considerably more sophisticated understanding is needed from White to prove any advantage against this. (If all they can do is imitate the Black's setup to block the position and play for a draw, forget it.) I use the Stonewall quite often and with reasonable success I think, although it's not my real beloved against 1. d4, ehem.

This is actually an excerpt from a larger essay on the Dutch Defence by NM Michael Aigner at fpawn.com  Check it out, it might answer some of your questions. =)

I could be wrong =)  Perhaps I did read your earlier article and am misremembering the author.  In any case NM Aigner's essay is quite excellent for a beginner, definitely worth a look.

No one posting in this thread is a Diamond member...but me. So I am the only one watching chess.com videos.

I viewed GM Roman D's video on the Dutch and he pretty much refuted this opening. I got the clear impression that Black will not reach equality if White plays smart. It's game over for Black after 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5. White has excellent winning chances after the exchange of the bishop-knight on f6.

What do you think?

That is the impression that Dzindzi tries to make in all his works, and I am yet to see one where his 'refutations' are even half convincing.

My friend is a diamond member, and he showed me a Dzindzi video where he claims he has refuted the Dragon. Nothing can be further from the truth. The line with ...ef in his video is dismissed much too easily...

I would take whatever Dzindzi says as a grain of salt, for as far as I am concerned, the Dutch is no more refuted than the KID or the Slav.

p.s. does he recommend a line for White after 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 (instead of 2...Nf6)?