X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Black is not OK!
White has a small advantage which he will try to nature into a win.
where in the position is this white small advantage? dont trust the computer on 0.40 :)
On reviling the Dutch
Sort:
Dutch positions are so peculiar..
TheDrevland wrote:
where in the position is this white small advantage? dont trust the computer on 0.40 :)
The small advantage's white has in this position are pretty obvious.
Black has created holes in there position free of charge.
The e5 square is a permanent hole in the black position.
The g5 square is a very tender square.
White has more center space due to his c4 and d4 pawn's.
White has better piece activity.
Black's bishop on c8 is a very closed in piece.
As you can see the evaluation that white is slightly better in this position is perfectly justified.
Dec 20, 2015
0
#45
Yes but at the cost of those holes Black has a lot of space. In fact, there's no Black opening like the Stonewall in terms of Black territory.
X_Player_J_X,
RE: #46
All due respect as I am always quite well edified by your intros to openings but isn't the position derived in Anand and Carlsen's game the same as the one in your post after move 6? And black won that game.
I will also note the problems with using computers to analyse openings--computers don't generally take into account what a human is comfortable with vs. what the computer is comfortable with. Computers are programmed to be comfortable with any position really. All they are doing is mapping through a list of algorithms programmed into them and finding the best move possible from that list of algorithms. However, many do not play computers and instead prefer human-only programs. What a computer sees (even at top-level play) many humans are bound to miss.
Spectator94 wrote:
Yes but at the cost of those holes Black has a lot of space. In fact, there's no Black opening like the Stonewall in terms of Black territory.
Well sort of.
The pawn on d4 + pawn on d5 give both white and black a nice share of center space.
The trade off black is making more or less deals with the king side of the board.
Black is giving white a hole in exchange for king side space which is what his F pawn is doing.
The draw back of this is positionally black is worse.
Black knows he is positionally worse so he trys to solve the problem by doing a dynamic solution.
Which is why people in the Dutch try to attack!
When you attack you are doing a dynamic/tactical solution to make up for your positional problem's.
The problem is the line white is playing is a fianchetto line which add's extra layer's of protection around the white king.
The extra layer of protection gives white more defensive resources to fend off an attack.
WOOOOOO RAWWWW!!!
If black's attack is not successful what ends up happening is black's weakness leave them positionally busted.
Once black is positionally busted white ends up with a superior position.
Once that happens black gets slaughtered.
WHY??
Well Bobby Fischer can tell you why!!
"Tactics flow from a superior position"
"Black is giving white a hole in exchange for king side space which is what his F pawn is doing."
Black is also opening a file for his rook to hopefully be used later on. The king though is generally quite safe in many variants of the Dutch especially after the queen is played to Qe8 later on.
I, personally, love the Dutch.
Here is how I prefer to play the Dutch as black.
Gamboo wrote:
Dutch positions are so peculiar..
I have to agree with THAT statement.
Dec 20, 2015
0
#51
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
If black's attack is not successful what ends up happening is black's weakness leave them positionally busted.
Well Bobby Fischer can tell you why!!
The Stonewall is not always about attacking. There's also positional lines involving b6. And Bobby Fischer is dead, chess insights evolve.
finn416 wrote:
I, personally, love the Dutch.
Here is how I prefer to play the Dutch as black.
As a matter of fact, I fail to see any problems for Black at 10... 0-0-0.
newengland7 wrote:
X_Player_J_X,
RE: #46
All due respect as I am always quite well edified by your intros to openings but isn't the position derived in Anand and Carlsen's game the same as the one in your post after move 6? And black won that game.
I will also note the problems with using computers to analyse openings--computers don't generally take into account what a human is comfortable with vs. what the computer is comfortable with. Computers are programmed to be comfortable with any position really. All they are doing is mapping through a list of algorithms programmed into them and finding the best move possible from that list of algorithms. However, many do not play computers and instead prefer human-only programs. What a computer sees (even at top-level play) many humans are bound to miss.
The below record is Magnus Carlsen's over all record as of 2015.
Overall record: +456 -186 =501 (61.8%)
Magnus Carlsen has played the Dutch Defense (1...f5) 5 times out of 1,000+ games.
His record according to chessgames is
2 wins - 1 draw - 2 losses
40% - 20% - 40%
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=52948&side=black&node=10703&move=1.5&moves=d4&nodes=10703
So the question I say on to you is:
If Magnus Carlsen is doing so great with the Dutch why has he only played it 5 times out of 1k+ games.
Magnus sucks. Why are you people using Carlsen out of all people.
X_Player: To repeat IM John Watson:
The Dutch Defence is a traditional and essentially sound opening which nevertheless requires precise treatment on Black's part
The Dutch is not unsound. Masters and grandmasters play it. No one is arguing that the Dutch is as cast-iron solid a route to equality as, say, the Nimzo-Indian.
Furthermore, the Dutch offers its particular trade-offs for those who like Dutch positions or prefer to have a preparation advantage or enjoy that the Dutch is not nearly so well explored as other QP defenses.
In any event, the opening choices of super-GMs don't have much bearing on how well openings work for the 99% of us below master level.
Yes in the Dutch Defense you can play several different way's.
- The Stone Wall Dutch
- The Leningrad Dutch
- The Classical Dutch
ipcress12 wrote:
X_Player: To repeat IM John Watson:
The Dutch Defence is a traditional and essentially sound opening which nevertheless requires precise treatment on Black's part
The Dutch is not unsound. Masters and grandmasters play it. No one is arguing that the Dutch is as cast-iron solid a route to equality as, say, the Nimzo-Indian.
Furthermore, the Dutch offers its particular trade-offs for those who like Dutch positions or prefer to have a preparation advantage or enjoy that the Dutch is not nearly so well explored as other QP defenses.
In any event, the opening choices of super-GMs don't have much bearing on how well openings work for the 99% of us below master level.
Tell me the year that quote was mentioned in 1999?
Apperently noone is interested in my comments. I will delete them now.
that's the nature of pretty much any mainline that is still played competitively. if you don't get that black is ok with being slightly worse after move 4, you might consider finding a new hobby.
or if you absolutely want complete equality after 4 moves, you need to play patzers.
btw, laughing at a sample size of 1000 master games makes you look like a complete idiot. even looking at super GM games will prove you wrong instantly; the position after 4..c6 has occured 6 times at super GM level; white has scored a whopping 16.7% in those (2 draws, 4 losses).
edit: do you really think an engine evaluation like +/= 0.4 is gonna give you any idea about an opening? do you even think an engine can evaluate this position accurately?
You still do not get it do you!!!!!
Why should black be ok with being slightly worse!!!
When he can play other line's like the Slav Defense, Nimzo Indian Defense, Queens Gambit Declined, or Queens Indian Defense!
Black reachs equality in these lines.
Black is not equal in the line I showed.
It is not even clear when he will even reach equal.