is the dutch worth learning

Is it worth learning or should I play it are two different questions. Example, I have studied the Benko gambit to a limited extent and I generally do not play it. But, it has taught me some key concepts that I can identify in other games and use. Mikhail Bottvinik played the Dutch. If you ever play d4 will need to know it. And the principle move of f5 occurs in multiple other types of games. Studying the Dutch could help with how to handle that f5 move in other games.

Yes, all chess studies help in one way or the other. But the Dutch as an opening defence is not worth it. White has lots of unpleasant continuations already from move two and a little later different Harry advances. You will almost never be able to play the main lines and certainly not Botvinniks slow king side attacks. It is black who will be constantly attacked.

The Dutch Defense is a solid enough opening to learn if you are curious to try. It is just that objectively speaking, it is not one of the best openings to choose. Players usually playing this opening recognize this and play partially for the surprise element of hoping they have this opening studied better than the opponent and can get an attacking game where practically speaking, either side could easily go wrong (often times the player less studied).

Even former World Champion Magnus Carlsen has played the Dutch Defense a good amount, so if he can use it against the world elite, then certainly you can use it against online players. It is just that objectively this opening is too weakening right from move 1. As someone who is beginner to intermediate level, it is probably better to learn a more principled chess opening which follows chess opening principles https://www.chess.com/blog/KeSetoKaiba/opening-principles-again and doesn't weaken your King.

Although not specific to the Dutch Defense, I made a YouTube video a few months ago explaining why pawn moves in front of your King are weakening:

Against d4, I play Nf6. But that’s simply too hard to learn. Just learn the simple d5 and then Queen’s Gambit Declined with e6.

The Dutch is great and all except for the fact that it does nothing. Like you can play Nf6 g6 Bg7 d6 without throwing your f-pawn and king safety out the window, and if you really want to defenestrate your f-pawn and king safety, you can just… postpone it like 10 moves and play a normal KID.

the dutch is a good option if youre willing to learn all the little things for black (depending what variations you play)

1. Leningrad- e6 is super weak and often your position is cramped because white has more queenside space but you often storm the kingside or play a5-na6 to claim space on the queenside. this is played because dutch players claim it is kings indian without Nh5-f5 being a 2 tempo waste
2. Classical- very similar to some of the Nimzo-indian lines where you try to control the lightsquares as much as you can. Eventually you will play Ne4 and even a potential g5 and storm the kingside. however often white is faster and gets b4-d5-c5 in and that wont be allways possible. also you have a space disadvantage lmao
3. stonewall- you completely clamp down on the e4 square with d5-f5 and have a very solid structure at the cost of having a terrible light squared bishop and heavily weakening e5. whites play often comes from exploiting the e5 hole and expanding on the queenside. there are also kingside storm ideas in this one

incorrect i doubt 1100 rated players know everything about the dutch and all the manuvers for white

you just dont know it well enough/ not good enough

The stonewall and Leningrad are trash, and the classical is ok, but honestly, just play the KID

I have actually faced both the Stonewall and the Leningrad Dutch Defense OTB with USCF Class A players (1800-2000 USCF rating and probably over 2000 online). Titled players including GM Magnus Carlsen has also used this in long time control games. I also believe the Classical Dutch is a bit more testing (I believe there is more testing than any Dutch Defense variation, but that is a different subject of debate), but I wouldn't go as far as to say the Stonewall or Leningrad are "trash." Of course any variation can be "trash" if it is not optimally played by both players. Other than obviously speculative gambits, I wouldn't label any opening "trash" until about 1600+ rating. Nothing special with 1600 chess.com rating specifically, but that is just around the time I find most players starting to learn deeper positional chess which isn't directly related to studying pawn structure like 1800+ more commonly does. Obviously, 1600 is far from a titled player and their level of understanding, but at least by around 1600, your intuition regarding which openings are bad or not should be a lot more developed to a judgement call like deciding something is objectively trash.

this is true, i know tons and tons of theory for many opening yet i never get them 😂

i think if somebody wants to play the classical dutch they should play the QID because you usually will get a knight on e4 then a pawn on f5 next move AND you will have a fianchettoed bishop compared to the classical where you cant

but that also means you gotta be careful of whites d5 sacrifices and his other options to deviate

When I say trash I mean very shaky. The Leningrad leaves a huge gaping hole on e6 and the stonewall produces a useless piece and your other bishop can be exchanged by force. At your level, there could be good ways to use them, but I have had more success with the classical. (Not that I had much success with the classical either)

Okay

playing all and everything you want, Below 2000 level, every opening works. Around 1300 level, upto 1800, no one knows any opening theory

Dutch is fine-ish, maybe a bit sus though. Classical is by far the best imo