That's a good question. Stats seem to favour g3 for white. Never the less, as white I've resisted playing g3 because I've always felt I didn't understand "why" I was playing it. As black I was always happy to see g3 because it presents a target for the f4 push at some stage.
I'd bet though it as something to do with pressure on the d5 square.
You get an pluffy Yellow M&M doll!
But more accurately, it's the Light Square weaknesses, control of the long diag
with f5 in the dutch black starts a series of moves aimed at securing the outpost e4 these moves include knight f6 d5 c6 to support d5 with a bishop on g2 white can ask questions of the of the e4 square and create speedbumps ie pawns if black goes for a kingside pawn storm
... with a bishop on g2 white can ask questions of the of the e4 square and create speedbumps ie pawns if black goes for a kingside pawn storm
I don't really think this is the case. Black's problem piece is the light squared bishop, due to the placement of the pawns on the light squares. White has three reasonable squares to place his king's bishop, namely e2, d3 or g2. If White decides to place his bishop on either e2 or d3 then Black has the opportunity to get rid of his problem bishop via b6 and Ba6.If the king's bishop is placed on g2 this option is no longer available for Black and he will have to find another plan to activate or trade his weak bishop.
I play the Leningrad Variation, which in fact avoids immediately staking a claim on many of the contentious white squares. Instead, I wait to see which pawns to push in the center and when is the best moment. While I understand the concept of the Stonewall, I prefer the Leningrad's flexibility. Overall, it doesn't seem to be a problem versus the fianchetto; as Ziggy said, I will many times get to play f4, opening up the f-file, and in some lines I can get my bishop to h3 and force a trade, leaving white with the weak squares around the king.
Guess, being prepared theoretically is better than going into an game with certain expectations derived from the opening. Playing vs the Dutch entails patience on white's part. Active prophylaxis (prevention) required from black. As white starts out with the initiative, better pawn structure, and king safety...without a doubt white always has an slight plus. But as we all know, that isn't winning in practical terms.
You still have to make accurate moves to turn those slight advantages into tangible ones ie material, significant outposts, pawn majority on the wings etc.
Fianchettoing is purely strategical (long range plans) in the Dutch akin to the Catalan system.
Fianchettoing makes perfect logical sense...pure postional, long term planning, seizing control of the diagonal. Still, for some reason I never seem to mind playing against this in the Dutch. For some reason, it's harder for me in, say, a Closed Sicilian.
The b1-h7 diagonal is not useful and squares like b3 pointing at the kingside are at the very least counter intuitive. The finachetto both offers the king more protection against black's usual kingside action and points the bishop toward the queenside where white will seek his play.
Agreed. Whereas in an Closed Sicilian, white actually cedes the initiative to black and plays "defensively" (implying subtle, or essentially passive play) and if you're cooperative, it's like playing hide-n-go seek with both players blindfolded. Thing is, the Dutch appears "aggressive" as the f pawn challenges e4 straightaway...but if has been shown that it's the Dark Squares (DS) + the a2-g8 line weakness (as Tal would say, "open for an left-hook"...heh) on black's kingside makes the case, that it's superficial thinking.
However, if you like playing those kinds of positions where you're constantly on edge to shore up certain holes in center, while combating an queenside invasion n drone attacks on your king...cool. Studying theory will always give you an leg up on opponents that simply play the moves, even if some say your opening "sucks". It's still all about your technical skill set, tactical awareness and experience.
In addition to what jeroen_n75 wrote above, developing white's bishop to g2 controls the long diagonal, including the important e4 and d5 squares. The g2 bishop also pressures the b7 pawn, causing further difficulties for black's problem light-square bishop. Finally, white's king-side fianchetto helps to defend against the black king-side attacks which are so common in the Dutch defense when white castles short.
I've always thought there are defensive reasons for the popularity of fianchettoing. With playing f5 black will undoubtedly have some midgame pressure on the kingside and if you develop the LSB anywhere else then it won't be of any use on that side of the board. There are many other great, maybe even better, ways to combat the Dutch as white though. I would probably play the really nice Bg5 systems. Either Bg5 immediately on move 2 or Nf3 first then Bg5 after.
And the h4 lines against ..g6 are devastating. The positional rook sac gives white a permanent edge in my opinion.
If you play the actual main line with white then often there is a very annoying pawn on d5, weakening black's grip on c6 and e6. This pawn is very sturdy and if it comes off there are suddenly all kinds of threats on the long diagonal. It can be a check or just pawn/exchange loss after Bxb7.
It's also been argued the Bg2/g3 structure is harder to crack in case of an attack. I myself am not sure this is the case.
If you look at the alternatives, then an early e3 and Be2 is harmless. Many players actually go for the silly Bc4. So then you can either block it or punish white severly with d5! (Entering a Stonewall that is not only boring, it also happens with tempo loss.)
Another popular patzer line is e3 and Bd3, hoping for an early e4. (What is early since e3 already wasted a tempo?) Now, after Nc3 you simply use a Stonewall again. Nbd2 also does not work because d4 is no longer defended I think. (Nc6 should be the move.) Finally, c4 and then Nc3 is simply too slow to be a problem: Black can already activate his own game somehow.
And that means not playing the main line has little use, unless you go for a way different anti line. (Like the one that was misplayed above :P)
The rook sac line is great for white. Not just tactically either, it yields a long term positional advantage. Just because you can find a few suboptimal moves in the game I posted as an example doesn't mean the opening is inaccurate.
The rook sac line is great for white. Not just tactically either, it yields a long term positional advantage. Just because you can find a few suboptimal moves in the game I posted as an example doesn't mean the opening is inaccurate.
Well, black picked the worst possible setup by playing g6 as early as possible, castling kingside and handing white the g7 bishop. To make it worse, the black queen goes on a little journey. From a defensive point of view, that game is a joke. It's not ''a few suboptimal moves,'' unless you mean all the other black moves were worse than suboptimal, in which case I agree!
So, black does not have to enter that line, but if he does, there is much better than that. With that I'm not saying the h4 line isn't testing. In fact I can't recommend playing g6 so early, before white even played c4. However... white will have to work to get back his investment with optimal play.
In fact I can't recommend playing g6 so early..
Well it's been played by hundreds of masters. Nakamura has lots of wins playing the early ..g6 system.
I'm pretty sure taking the pawn gift and allowing the rook sac loses by force but there are many other ways to play the position.
In fact I can't recommend playing g6 so early..
Well it's been played by hundreds of masters. Nakamura has lots of wins playing the early ..g6 system.
I'm pretty sure taking the pawn gift and allowing the rook sac loses by force but there are many other ways to play the position.
Of course, if you're a professional player you will be well prepared for all the lines. From a practical point of view, 3...g6 or even 4...g6 is much easier to play, because then white will at least have spent a tempo on c4, diminishing the direct attack if h4 should come anyway. It's just common sense.
I do not see how even the direct line is losing, but it is the most dangerous for black. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it won't mean much unless you have a better game to show. I'll be happy to take a look at that some time. Right now I think I've taken up enough space in this thread so I'll leave it at that.
In response to the OP, speaking as a former Dutch player myself, you have to understand the Dutch to understand why g3 is best play for White, and many Dutch players don't understand the Dutch.
If you go into a game as Black playing 1.d4 f5 pre-meditating that you will play the Stonewall, you're an idiot! The whole point of the Dutch is not to play the Stonewall. The point of the Stonewall is a result of White playing an early g3.
For example, the Stonewall is HORRIBLE against 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5?? (4...Bb4 is correct here) 5.Bf4! intending 6.e3 and 7.Bd3.
Think about your first move, 1...f5. What piece of Black's is this the most detrimental to? The Light Squared Bishop! Even in the Leningrad, f5 impedes the Bishop on c8. Play an early ...e6, and it's even worse! How often do you see problems with the LSB in the Classical or Stonewall Dutch? The answer should be "All The Time"!
Take other openings that have severely impeded Bishops. Take the Dragon, with a pawn on e7 and d6. What do you do with the Dark-Squared Bishop? YOU FIANCHETTO IT! Think about What you do as White in the English more often than not. c4 impedes the f1 Bishop. Where does that Bishop go? It goes to g2!
So what do you suppose is the best setup for Black in the Dutch? A QUEENSIDE FIANCHETTO! This ought to explain the reasoning behind an early g3 for White. It's to PREVENT BLACK FROM FIANCHETTOING THE LIGHT-SQUARED BISHOP!
Only now, since White has specifically prevented you from playing the best setup as Black, should you be thinking about Classical and Stonewall lines (classical setup against Nh3 lines, Stonewall against Nf3 Lines, though the Classical against Nf3 is also possible). Unless you're an idiot, you shouldn't be pre-meditating a Stonewall under any circumstances. If anything, you should be playing 1...f5 and 2...Nf6 with intention to play 3...b6!, (or 3...e6 to protect f5 if attacked intending 4...b6) and only if White prevents this, namely via g3, the basis of the question in the original post, should Black then think about Classical and Stonewall setups.
The reason you see tons of books on the Stonewall and Classical and very little coverage on offbeat lines is because very few people at the higher levels will allow b6 by Black. It's only at the patzer level, where players try to play the same pawn structure against everything, that you get garbage like an early e3 against the Dutch, and some repertoire books try to advertise a playable line structured like the Stonewall for consistency, but that's the lazy and highly inferior way out! If White doesn't prevent it, Fianchetto your LSB in the Dutch! If he does prevent it, then go Classical, Stonewall, or Leningrad!
In my search for active, exciting, and/or unorthodox responses to d4, the Dutch Defense seems to be the opening that makes for the most exciting game for me.
My question is: why do white's responses to the Dutch so often include g3 and a kingside fianchetto? This practice seems much more prevelant in the Dutch than in other defenses I've tried (QGD Cambridge Springs, Lasker Defense, Slav, Benko). Not that I'm complaining; I actually enjoy playing against the fianchetto. But why is it so popular?