The Stonewall Attack

Hi everyone.

I just played two live games using the Stonewall Attack; I won both.  The opening seems defensive at first, but then it opens up several possibilities for aggression.  I love it.

Here are the games.  I'm rated around 760 or so, so both I and my opponents blundered some, but i managed to win both.  Any comments would be appreciated.  Enjoy!

By the way, I played white in both games

Nobody said that 2.d5 wins by force, but it's certainly not a bad move. Every serious source i have seen considers it as leading to a certain edge for white.

I suspect that the three-or-four-hundred rating point gap between Miles and Gerusel pronably had more influence on the result than White's choice on move 2 did.

Some opinions on 1...Nc6

a) Who cares if it leads to equality with best theoretical play? Too many branches of the tree to learn them all, especially with a move like 1...Nc6 which allows White a whole bunch of reasonable looking moves. 

b) Black can get a comfortable game out of almost any opening - but be careful you are not winning games in spite of your opening, rather than as a result of your opening.

c) The theoretical dispute over 2.d5 is of course not solved by the first 6 moves of a game between a relative unknown and Tony Miles.

As the comment above points out the game's outcome was due more to the errors of each player than the opening chosen. My only suggestion would be to choose a partner of similar level with whom you can play a longer game than a 10 0 and who will perhaps do after game analisyse with you. This way it is easier to spot the mistakes and successes so as to cherry pick which to take forward.

ps. I happen to agree that the stonewall is an underestimated opening for players with strong positional understanding, I highly recommend the games of steinitz as an insight into the early stages of positional play and pawn lines.

Hey guys, thanks for the help!  I appreciate it a lot.

Ive played stonewall attack exclusively for years as white. I dont care if Im not well rounded. I do know that I enjoy developing and fine tuning the system in my own way and I think Ive seen it all just about. At least I know when Im busted when I see certain moves made. Ive developed counters to keep me in the game when that happens. Im not the best player but I can defeat people much higher rated with this opening if they dont know whats up. I dissagree with 3.c3 and insist you must move the bishop first to d3. Why? because on g7 you are busted and must give up on the stonewall attack immediately and go for c4, then qc3. ANd also it prevents the black bishop from moving to f5. An early C3 is  used to stop a bishop check rarely but mostly to stop the white knight from going to c4 attacking the bishop after the knight goes to c6.  If the opponent bum rushes pawns on the queen side it gives the bishop an escape square. But theres a reason for each move according to how it plays out. Thats why the book I learned it from is called how to think ahead in chess. Read that as a primer for this opening.

This is what a stonewall player thinks of as fine tuning:

Sometimes I line up my pieces on the h file and sac on h7 with a smirk.

Sometimes I line up my pieces on the h file and sac on h7 with a smile.

Sometimes I line up . . . etc.

Read my edit I have my reasons.

Wink-face at the end implies it was tongue-in-cheek.

Although I have to admit I hate to play against this opening. I feel like if I don't win as black then I'm an idiot. But it is obviously not an automatic win for black, so this is a bad attitude of mine.

And the last two times I faced it in a casual games I managed to lose... one of them was even after I got the nearly winning endgame (when their attack doesn't work at all). I dropped a piece for no reason