Have you played the Stonewall formation as Black, what are your thoughts on it?

I'm wondering about the Stonewall Dutch type of formation for Black. I've read that this is a useful pawn structure to know, and I like the fact that in the Stonewall Dutch you avoid all the hack attack systems like the Colle, Torre, Barry, etc. 

Has anyone played it and what's been your experience?

If black can't get an attack going he might be stuck in a classic bad bishop vs good knight endgame. Oh, and if white plays the Symmetrical Stonewall, it is probably the most boring setup possible in chess.

I love superior/inferior minor piece struggles. One of the things that intrigues me about this opening is I was perusing the book Win With The Stonewall Dutch by Johnson and Berne and one of the things I read was them saying that Black's theoretically bad light square bishop could actually be a lot better than it seemed and become better than White's light square bishop. Now one the reasons I want to keep reading the book and try the opening is to find out what they mean by that.

Well, let's start from the fact that is more solid from the Budapest Gambit. Lol

As every opening idea, it has plus and minus. You take control of the light squares with this triangle formation of your pawn structure and you try to put a knight on e4. Now days the modern Stonewall with the dark Bishop on d6 is fashionable but be aware that white will try to trade dark square bishops with Bf4 or Ba3 moves in order to take control the dark squares, so better keep it on e7. Your light square bishop is a minus and as long you keep it to the ending will not help, try to exchange it with a knight following the road c8-d7-e8-h5

Try to do not alter your Queen side pawn structure dramatically cause finally white will strike there! and occasionally you may find good chances to attack king side with a quick g4-g5.

Generally is a slow positional game with a lot of pawn tension. If you like to avoid cole-London-Torre with the Stonewall you don't do much! You are gonna die bored anyway.

At least with Budapest black loses quickly.

I think Magnus won recently a Stonewall against Caruana. They played four hours!

Thanks for the input Bishop_g5.

Btw, I like the Budapest Gambit and will always play it if I know my opponent plays d4 c4, but against d4 Nf3 players I thought the Stonewall might be an interesting option.

Nah! If you play a stonewall against d4,Nf3 players you give them , the pace they want. Don't follow their passivity and try to play aggressive. After Nf3 play c5 immediately. If they take follow with Nf6,e5 and you will be fine.

You don't need a original formation to play chess, or a system to follow. I play recently the Gruenfeld against 1.d4 which has a lot of theory but there are occasions were white deviates from theory in move three or five. What am I supposed to do? Call the arbiter?

This is why we play chess for.

Honesty, As a Dutch player, it's not for me most of the time. It is good to know. Sometimes white plays the opening weird and playing d5 is really good for black if they know the themes. But that's just me

1.d4 nf6 2.nf3 c5 was an option I was considering.

If White plays 3.d5 then the game can transpose into a strange Benoni, I was looking at some lines and Black gets a cramped position. Whereas I read something Vladimir Kramnik wrote about the Stonewall that it was one of the few openings where Black gets a space advantage.

I was looking at the classical Dutch too but the Stonewall looks more attractive to me. I believe the Stonewall is right up my alley. I like chess battles where binds on a certain square are a key feature, and positions with minor pieces dueling for superiority.

The Stonewall is a very interesting try, not a flexible one (as Black has a very limited range of plans), but with a good study of it you can play a lot of good games. But some remarks:

1) You shouldn't have a Repertoire with the Budapest and the Stonewall, because what would you play after 1.d4? If you play 1...Nf6 to play the Budapest, then White plays 2.Nf3 and you don't have the Stonewall.

2) "Try to do not alter your Queen side pawn structure dramatically cause finally white will strike there! and occasionally you may find good chances to attack king side with a quick g4-g5." That's incorrect. There are plans with ...b6 and ...c5, that are strategically very difficult (with hanging pawns)

3) The Stonewall is solid, but also agressive. You can see a lot of Botvinnik games when Black demolishes White kingside castle. Of course, now White players know how to defend, but in for the Club players this attack could be very dangerous.

I am a long time advocate of the Stonewall,

BUT

You can't make it your end-all, be-all answer to all Queen Pawn openings.

Here's a short synopsis on the rules of the Stonewall, when it's good, and when it's bad:

NOTE:  I PURPOSELY did not put diagrams.  If you care enough to improve on the Stonewall Dutch, you will get out a board and pieces and do it that way...having to do it yourself forces you to think about what you are doing rather than just clicking a button at rapid pace a dozen times.

1) If White is able to play Bf4 AND Bd3 with no damage done to White's pawn structure, the Stonewall Dutch is a horrible line of defense.  So, for example, after 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3, 4...d5 is perfectly fine, because after 5.c4 c6 6.O-O Bd6, one of the main lines is 7.Bf4, to which Black can answer 7...Bxf4!, damaging White's pawn structure.  However, 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3, the move 4...d5 is a lemon move as 5.Bd3 gives White the ideal structure with no damage done to his pawns.  The other case is 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3, here again, 4...d5 is a lemon move because of 5.Bf4!!.  Instead, 4...Bb4, with an improved Nimzo (...f5 played before ...Nf6, don't have to move ...Ne4 first to get in ...f5).

2. Do not play ...c6 until White has played c4.  After 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.O-O, Black should play 5...Bd6 and NOT 5...c6.  Many times, that c6-square can be useful for a Knight if c4 hasn't been played yet, and also Black can let White trade on d6 if he can recapture with the pawn (i.e. Bxd6 cxd6), controlling e5.  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Black allow White to play Bxd6 where he must then play ...Qxd6 that early in the game.  White must work to do that, like b3, Bb2, Qc1, Ba3, etc, which wastes a lot of time for White.

3. Remain flexible.  Often times, a fianchetto on the Queenside, or a ...c5 or ...b5 push are very powerful in the Stonewall Dutch.  It's not just some hack job on the Kingside.  While that approach works against many passive lines (i.e. e3 lines where the BIshop is behind the pawn chain), it's not "automatic".

So if you are going to take up the Stonewall, here's how I suggest you approach it:

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3, here you can play 4...d5

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4, here, play 4...c6.  If White follows with 5.Nf3, you play 5...d5 and you are back in Stonewall territory, and you have followed the rule of no ...c6 until c4 is played.

After 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 c6, if White now plays 5.Nh3 or 5.Bf4, you can still take on the classical approach, 5...d6!, playing for ...e5

Against early Nh3 lines, like 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nh3, play the Classical Dutch setup.

Against 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3, play 4...Bb4! and take on a similar approach to what is called the "Dutch Variation" of the Nimzo-Indian Defense, and you are actually a move ahead.

If White doesn't fianchetto first, fianchettoing the Light-Squared Bishop is often a good idea, but not before Nf6 and e6 are played.  So 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3, consider 4...b6 and 5...Bb7 rather than 4...d6.  Again, 4...d5 is a losing idea here.

If you want to avoid the various Gambits (2.e4, 2.g4), you can play 1...e6 first IF AND ONLY IF you are also willing to play a French (2.e4!).  Personally, bring on the Gambits!  Last time I faced one, in late July, I creamed my opponent in 30 moves!

 I can only complete agree with this comment! Listen to this clearly good Stonewall player.

Thanks a ton for your comments FMCouch and ThrillerFan. This is why I love this forum. 

Hey, no problem.  The only thing you do have to watch out for is which comments are faulty and which are by a player of genuine strength in the opening discussed.

For example, FiveOfSwords can give you useful info on the c3-Sicilian, but if he tries to give you Najdorf Advice, or advice on how to beat the French, take it with a grain of salt.

As for myself, the following are my greatest strengths when it comes to opening theory:

A) French Advance

B) Exchange Ruy

C) Stonewall Dutch (Along with certain lines of the Classical)

D) Taimanov Sicilian

E) QGD Rubinstein Variation (i.e. Lines with Qc2 instead of Rc1)

F) QGD Exchange Variation

G) Pirc/Modern Austrian Attack

And I'd consider myself a notch below that for the following:

H) Najdorf Sicilian (Work in progress)

I) Grunfeld (Work in progress)

J) Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation (Work in progress)

K) Classical King's Indian (Simply been a while since I played it - Mainly Mel Dar Plata and Gligoric)

L) KID - Four Pawns Attack (Again, simply been a while)

Of course, I know the basics of standard openings, like the first 9 moves of the Closed Ruy Lopez, and stuff like that, but the above deals more with delving deeper into theory.

Also, unlike other users who will try to answer everything, while I can easily explain why a player would play 3...Bb4 in the Nimzo-Indian, and why the Queen's Indian is bad against 3.Nc3, when it comes to deep theory, the Nimzo-Indian is not my specialty at all, and you won't see me giving the level of detail I gave above in post 10 for openings like that just to sound smart, so you can usually trust what is posted from me about opening theory, but do watch out for some others, espeically those with less than a 2000 over the board rating!  And even some of them will try to show off when they really don't know anything, so again, do be careful.  But again, if you've got Questions on the Nimzo-Indian, Modern Benoni, Panov-Botvinnik Attack, or Sicilian Dragon - I at least shall defer!

FM Couch @

I really don't know how this plans with ...b6 ...c5 work for the Stonewall player and under which sircumnstances. I will only play the Stonewall as a transformation from the Queens Gambit Declined when white will go for Catalan 3.g3. I hate to play against the Catalan and I like observing whites face unhappy watching the transformation. This is why I prefer this approach, to exchange quick the light square bishop, to do not alter the Q side pawn structure and look for pawn brakes in the King side.

It's my antidote to Catalan players 😎

The dutch stonewall is okay but I tend to avoid is because 1. D4, f5 2. E4 and it becomes a gambit that I don't like playing with the black pieces. Therefore, I usually play it as white and this may be a good idea or not, but I often develop my dark squared bishop like this once all my other minor pieces are developed 'bd2, be1, bh4' and now your bishop has more purpose and can be traded off for a much better endgame. However, that idea might be a bit slow and maybe you'll be more wanting to launch an attack instead of some positional stuff.

Thrillerfan, I like how you haven't switched around openings a bunch like a lot of players do and have instead built up a mastery of your choosen repertoire. The genuineness of your comments and knowledge in these openings is apparent.

When I suggested you make youtube videos earlier, I wasn't meaning to say that you'd be like the Backyard Professor as far as opening knowledge, because a lot of the time that guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about completely. I just meant if someone like the Backyard Professor can achieve so much success on youtube with nearly 13,000 subscribers then I know you could easily be more successful as him as far as popularity.

In any case, I'm very much looking forward to seeing the games of your future French Advance and Dutch Stonewall wins.

 Here you have an interesting game with this plan (there are more obviuosly):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1218564

This is a rather different approach that the typical kingside attacks, and more difficult to play too, but a playable one.

Talking about the Stonewall Dutch from Black's perspective.

I think that the modern way of fighting using the stonewall is to start with 1...d5 first, because as mentioned above 1...f5 allows gambits (on e4 and g4) as well as the 2.Bg5 line which can be annoying for those hardened with the stonewall type of position. I think the benefit of avoiding these lines outweighs the option of playing ...d6 later, as thriller mentioned above. The stonewall can also be made via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 f5 4.Nf3 Nf6. You can even transpose to a line of Nimzo if you wish after 3...Nf6 and 4...Bb4 but that is another story.

If you are below 2000, most of your games will not involve a kingside fianchetto from White (not everyone knows/chooses to follow the "main lines"). So you will more likely be facing positions that looks like whats after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 f5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Qc2 Qe8. Either way you can use the b6/Bb7 idea or Bd7-e8-h5 idea or the Qe8-h5 ideas.

There are also chances of White playing cxd5 against your stonewall, and in that case, take with the e-pawn (if it does not hang your f-pawn).

Monolithic but quite effective at the amateur level,being one of the very few black openings where black gets a space advantage.I have a sneaking suspicion however  that the Stonewall is not too impressive for black at Grandmaster level. Perhaps mostly because it allows white to be elastic while black has committed himself too early

Someone who decides to play the dutch defense as a main opening shouldn't avoid those gambits, why not give your opponent a chance to play an inferior opening? It's not like you have to learn a completely new opening (for example a sicilian Sveshnikov player should also learn the Rossolimo variation, which is almost as good as the main lines, just completely different) you just have to learn how to refute those dubious gambits. Of course if you just use it as a surprise weapon occasionally, the situation could be different. And yes, you can play d5-e6-f5, but the stonewall is not good against everything. So it's a matter of taste if you want to learn the stonewall/QGD or the stonewall/classical dutch, the latter seems simpler to me.