stonewall

I know I've seen a forum about this at some point, and I figure I'd like to know the benefitrs and weaknesses of this opening, since I've won a few games with it.

I thank all for their helpful input.

The downside is that you dont get an opening advantage.

The upside is that it can be played against anything. You'll know your opening better than your opponent, and that it gives some pretty decent kingside attacks.

i dont think there are any benefits.  You block bishop, your give away the 4 square, you weaken your king position. Im a really weak amateur but i think that is one of the worst opening. the idea about the stonewall is to do this moves when black has commited himself, so in that context all that weaknesses make somehow sense. but in that case you show you get nothing in return. But thats just the viewpoint of a Patzer.

There are actually quite a lot of benefits.

Comapre it to the stonewall dutch, esentially  mirror image. The stonewall is one o blacks most solid options against 1.d4. However it can not be played against 1.e4.

Now as white we have an extra tempo, we can set the game with 1.d4 meaning e5 isn ot possible, and now we can play it against anything.
Our knight usually has a nice spot on e5, our bishop looks at the kingside from d3, our d4 f4 e3 c3 pawn chain is super solid. In general a very safe system, in which despite its look, many kingside attacking opportunities can arise.
There are a few options to activate the bishop as well, one interesting one is Bd2-Be1-Bh4 plan

you are kidding right?? 

what exactly do you disagree with?

First of all its not that super safe for black. The structural weaknesses dont just disapear, sure nakamura can win with it,  but he can also win with e4 e5 qh5. Besides were is the logic in playing f4 for the second move?

So you play f4 to be safe, even so as being white you are more save anyway compared to black. But for being "safe" you make all those structural weaknesses and totally throw all dynamic and initiative out of the window. 

Im so weak as a chessplayer, so i could never tell anything about chess strategy and plans and stuff. But i just can figure out what reason someone could ever have to play f4 on the second move after d4.

I'll have to agree with Fear_Itself on this argument.  Although I am unsure whether or not this can be played against everything, you can certainly develop strong kingside attacks and also develop traps.  I really do think that this opening was developed to stop an e5 opening but that's just me.  I do my own variation of a stonewall that attacks the d5 opening for black and also covers my knight to penetrate black's opening.  I find it to be versatile when playing as either color but its downfall would be blocking in either bishop depending on whether or or not I do d3 or Bd3.  The full notation for the opening is c4, Nc3, e4, Bd3/d3 (this move can be played to your discretion), and finish with Nd5 which should be a free square do to my two pawns attacking it, this should deter anyone from playing d5.  Like I said this is my opinion, it's just an example of how any stonewall variation would stop development of pieces.  P.S. I am unsure whether this is already a discovered opening or not, if anyone knows please tell me the name of it, much appreciated.

1. Yes, it is. The Dutch Stonewall is one of the most solid defenses against a QP opening.

2. If there were a system that was both safe and provided the initiative with a very dynamic position everyone would be playing it. But it doesnt exist.

3. Generally f4 isnt actually played on the second move, often something along the lines of d4 e3 bd3 f4 is played, though this is a minor nuance.

Yes, the stonewal does provde the weakness of the e4/e5 square (depending on which side you play it as). Other than this though the Stonewall has a super solid structure with almost no other weaknesses, maybe the only other issue is the bad bishop, which often isnt that big a problem anyway.

If it were so safe, wouldnt everyone just play it against stronger players? And why would white play ultra safe anyway, i mean he is the one with the advantage

People regularly try safe systems against stronger players, which is often a mistake. While a stronger player may make a blunder in a tactically complex position, the weaker will be positionally out classed and the stronger player will have to make many more mistakes for the weaker to win. A common misconception that surviving longer means you played better against a stronger player.

To preserve the opening advantage white in most cases is required to follow theory. Often for this theory to become tangible or at least visible to people below master level you have to follow 15-20 moves in most cases. Many people dont want to keep up to date with all this theory and would rather play a system opening. It has the added benefit of being able to be played against anything (hence 'system), this means that the resulting positions are often very similar to each other and the player may develop a level of expertise for the plans and nuances in these positions.

A common misconception that surviving longer means you played better against a stronger player. And thats why i thought stonewall is bad, well there are lot of other ways to avoid the most theoretic openings and play somewhat more ambitious i believe...

There are plans where you just go for g4/g5 like a crazy person but I think a titled player would just hammer you... Against other players idunno.

Realistically if you're out classed rating wise, just knowing an opening isnt going to help you, no matter what it is.

Its true theres other non mainline ambitious openings, but as a general rule the greater an advantage you can extract by an opening the more theoretical it is. This is due to the simple relationship between an openings standing with top players and theory. If an opening is proven to give white an advantage, all the top players will be using it. This results in theoreticians deeply studying the opening, not to mention the top players themselves who will contribute ideas. The obvious effect of this is that it results in a mountain of theory.

Its somewhat odd though, the stonewall dutch (black) is a bit of an exception to this rule as it has been played by many of the worlds best, and yet because it is so positionally based and non tactical it hasnt led to much theory as there are no forcing lines.
The Stonewall attack (white) however hasnt been played by many top players as it results in an = game, so its not too relevant.

I would strongly advice black playing the Stonewall in any move order and even more specifically any order that enters the Stonewall before the white knight is on c3. If not white has a very simple play with Ng1 -> f3 -> e5 -> d3 and Nb1 -> d2 -> f3. This system was not yet known in the time the stonewall was played often by some great masters but i can assure you that it is really is no fun to play against. You have no realistic chances for positionally sound counterplay and you will die slowly because of your weakness on the dark squares and the extra pawn on c8.

The same in a way holds true for the white version of the stonewall. You play a stonewall when the black knight is not on c6 he also does not have a pawn on g3 this means that the standard break against the stonewall (f3/e4) is even stronger here. You might get away with it because you might have time to exchange your dark squared bishop on a3 but more than equality you will not reach. On the other side

So the disadvantges are:

- f4 is not a development move and does not help development

- You permamently lose control over e4

- You make your own dark squared bischop bad

- Black did not weaken the f6 square yet. So the control over e4 that black has in the stonewall (f3 is much more dangerous with a pawn on g3 than with a pawn on g2) is not realistic here. Black will proably not play g6 but protect the f6 square so he can play f6 and be very happy about the opening results.

- You might get an outpost on e5 but this is doubtfull because black can kick the knight with f6.

but with the games I've used it with, I've had one of these happen each time:

ergo, it's held each time.

First of all ofcourse Nf6-e4 is not a good move. It is a second move with a developed piece and just loses time. Instead black can do much better with a move like Bf5 of Bg4.

Second: just because it went well for you this time does not mean it is a good idea in general.

Third: I did not say reversed stonewall was losing. White is allowed to make 1 bad move and survive but clearly white has to be very carefull not to get into a disadvantage.

I had misinterpruted what you had typed, then, but I still get the feeling that you see 2. f4 as an inferior move, if not a bad move.  Why?

How is it an inferior move, then, and how does it create positional liabilities?

Then why not try explaining the fundementals that would allow me to conclude that?