One simple reason is this:
With 1... c5, you're keeping White fron establishing a pawn center with d2-d4, and the only cost is a small lag in development. White has no intention of playing an early f2-f4 as it is committal and sometime weakening.
With 1... f5, you're making a rather committal move in order to prevent White's e2-e4 when White can play c2-c4 which is almost as useful.
See the difference?
A fairly sensible set of questions. I quess there will be people who will disagree with you about your statements as to the quality of the Dutch...etc...etc....I am even sure Pfren will show to gives us his pearls of wisdom. After all he seems to have an opinion on everything...
My two cents for what it's worth is that perhaps it is more of a trend thing. Just look when Kasparov played the Scotch against karpov and the whole chess world wet themselves. Maybe no one plays the Dutch because no one of any note has chosen to champion its worth?
I know it's not necessarily championing the opening but I recall Magnus Carlsen playing it against Vishy Anand last year in Baden Baden and against Caruana in Shamkir.
I rather like it when Pfren shows up... his lines are sweet as hell
I thought maybe a reason was that the Sicilian is easier for beginners to learn and the Dutch seems to take longer to master, so Sicilians are just plain played more often...
The Ginger GM (Simon Williams) plays the Dutch regularly with great effect. He usually plays it when white opens with D4, whereas the Sicilian is usually played on E4, not so?
A very, very old opening tome I used to have stated 1 f5 in the Dutch was non-developing and weakened the king side. This still seems sound reasoning to me, and it weakens the dark squares as well, especially in the Stonewall.
I think the similarity with the Sicilian, doing the same thing on the other side, is pretty superficial. There is a saying that if black has equalised in the [open] Sicilian, black is winning. This is not true in any sense in the Dutch.
Interestingly, the Stonewall is much more popular at lower levels than amongst elite players or even GMs. I think it is because it is a structure you can learn and play against a lot of things, club players play the Stonewall as white which is a rarity among titled players, and it plans on getting an attack on the king and that appeals to club players.
Funny, I like Dutch enough to play it in tournament games from time to time, but never wanted to play Stonewall... Sure it entails enormous risk, but for some reason I prefer this kind of risk to Sicilian risk.
There are, however, two problems with Dutch. One is sidelines. For example 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 virtually forces 2...d5 (or 2...Nf6 3.Bg5 d5) and White has pleasant game without even bothering to learn theory.
The second problem is that Dutch seems "an orphan opening" - meaning that it is difficult to apply lessons learned there to other openings. (i.e you can play ...f5 in Queen's Indian. but You don't normally play ...b6 in Dutch, so it is completely different structure)
The difference is easy. Chess is NOT a symmetrical game. The major difference is the queen versus the king. By pushing c5 as a way to contest the central square that White does not occupy on move 1, Black not only keeps White from having the big center, but also opens up his Queen, which will often move along that diagonal in the majority of Sicilian lines, usually to c7 or b6. There is no threat for White to attack the queen on the weakened a5-d8 diagonal. The Dutch, on the other hand, while it also contests the central square that White does not occupy on move 1, it also weakens the diagonal that the King is on instead of the Queen, which Black actually does have to worry about. Even after castling, a2-g8 can be weak, forcing Black to spend another move going to h8. The fact that chess is not a symmetrical game is why what appear to be symmetrical openings actually tends to have one be far more popular than the other, like the Sicilian over the Dutch, or the Ruy Lopez over the Veresov, or the move 1...Nf6 against 1.d4 as opposed to Nimzovich's Defense, 1.e4 Nc6.
The Leningrad Dutch is almost worthy of GM play, but few would risk it I think.
I actually play the Stonewall Dutch a lot. It's easy to memorize what to do and Black has a great strong point on e4. Getting a knight on there gets you a good game.
The main weakness of the Stonewall Dutch is that you spend valuable pawn moves in in the opening in building the "wall", and if you lose your dark squared bishop your position will have lots of holes in them.
As someone who's also played against the Stonewall Dutch I can say it has a psychological advantage too- it's really annoying to play against!
Youtube has many videos on The Dutch Defence, so it still has it's devotees.
So basically it weakens the g8-a2 diagonal making you waste a tempo to have your king on h8 and it has no problems for white because he has no problems in not playing into e2-e4 since he already has c2-c4?
"Refutation" is a strong word. The Dutch is still highly playable for all but the worlds top 50 players
It is a good opening that is not as popular as the Sicilian.
Hugh Alexander, an early and fervent Dutch player, said that if God played God in the Dutch, White would win. but for us mortals, it's fine.
Yusupov once said that the problem with the Dutch is that Black often wants to play f5-f7.
The Sicilian creates a hole on c7, which is usually nowhere near the King, but the Dutch creates a hole on f7, which is already the weakest square on the board.
I think I disagree with Alexander. With best play, God would barely be able to draw as Black in the Dutch, but he would suffer. The Dutch allows for really interesting play, but it's less popular than the Sicilian because it's less flexible, and more risky.
I play both the Sicilian and the Dutch, and I think the really big differences with the positions I'm getting are:
(1) The king is easier to hide in the Sicilian. I have castled queenside in the Dutch maybe once, and I've scurried to the center a few times, but I don't think my king has ever been happy anywhere in the Dutch except on h8 or h7....you essentially must castle kingside, and you must commit to an additional tempo to scoot off the g8-a2 diagonal. In the Sicilian, I've castled queenside (rarely but sometimes effectively), I've kept the king in the center, and I've seen strong games by professionals that utilize both ideas.
(2) Ultra-aggressive options for the white player. In the Sicilian, it's often black who gets to set the pace for how sharp a game we're aiming for....sure, we could play a Najdorf or a Sveshnikov and try to generate as much madness as possible, but we could equally play an O'kelly or a Taimanov and try to play a little more positionally. White can try to gambit some pawns, but none of the gambits are too scary. In the Dutch, white can play the Staunton gambit which can end up discoordinating black's pieces for a pawn you cannot refuse and may not get to keep.
Dutch Beer!!!! vs. Sicilian Pizza .....
----END OF ARGUMENT!!!!----
I think Magnus Carlsen said it best.
Flank Attack openings offer the greatest attacking chances. However, they often suffer from positional weaknesses.
The Dutch Defense is considered a risky opening.
Most super GM's don't consider it very reliable.
Often times you will see high levels play it when they are really looking for a win.
Most prefer to play something more stable.
The Dutch Defense has its issues.
The thing you have to take into consideration when judging whether or not to play the Dutch Defense is based on your ranking level and your opponents ranking level.
If you are playing in a ranking range of 1700 or below.
Than playing this sort of opening really will not matter.
The issues which the Dutch face will always be present.
However, If your opponent isn't strong enough as a chess player yet.
Than they may not know how to exploit those issues.
Which is to say most people below 1700 may not exploit the issues very well.
On the other hand if you start facing people above 1700 than you may decide to change your opening etc.
As you get stronger in ranking level.
The margin of error becomes lower.
Thus, Small tiny weakness become more game changing problem's.
A 500 player playing against another 500 player maybe not even be able to win having a computer advantage of +10.0
However, Magnus Carlsen has beaten people with a +0.30 advantage.
The advantage is so microscopely small that you would think it is a draw.
However, Magnus has won games with such a small edge.
The Dutch Defense does give white a small edge in some of its lines.
Usually the edge is minor around +0.40 - 0.50
In some lines it even bricks out to 0.00 depending on the opening lines white plays against it.
Usually, Expert strength players to Title strength players are the only ones which can grind something so small into a win.
A fairly sensible set of questions. I quess there will be people who will disagree with you about your statements as to the quality of the Dutch...etc...etc....I am even sure Pfren will show to gives us his pearls of wisdom. After all he seems to have an opinion on everything...
My two cents for what it's worth is that perhaps it is more of a trend thing. Just look when Kasparov played the Scotch against karpov and the whole chess world wet themselves. Maybe no one plays the Dutch because no one of any note has chosen to champion its worth?