Why the StoneWall Attack is not played at elite level?

Simple question. I use to play it with white pieces and Im having a very fun games, Im able to either create some direct attacks or get a closed game where manioveuring right is the key, and I like boths of them.

My personal opinion about why it isn¡t played at high level is because it's very easy for good black players to achieve an even/drawish game?

It kinda surprise me that the Dutch defense is played (ok rarely, but it is still played) and the StoneWall attack where you are 1 tempo ahead isn't.

It's not played because the Stonewall is a defensive opening, and most chess players don't like to defend with the white pieces. 1.f4 gets seen occasionally at the elite level, but not the Stonewall Attack.

Do you think it is ok for club players to study it and play it at competitions with 90 minutes time games, or do you think it's a waste of time?

I think it's a waste of time to study it, but there's nothing wrong with playing it, especially if it leads to positions in which you can create a plan to improve your position or attack.

Some Stonewall Attack stuff....

https://www.chess.com/news/view/stonewall-attack-5609

The stonewall commits very early on to a closed and static pawn structure, allowing black a free hand to set up however he likes in an attempt to equalize -- which he can without trouble if he knows the basic plans.

This same intractable nature makes it an effective defense against certain white setups, where black's goals may be aligned with these factor, AND white has already committed to previous moves.  Even so, the stonewall is only effective at a high level when black uses it against very particular white setups, waiting until they appear on the board to venture ...d5.

Put another way, a stonewall structure is functional as part of a larger repertoire if you're reacting to your opponent's moves by selecting from a number of options.  It's less effective if you're forced to commit early, allowing your opponent to select optimal anti-stonewall moves.  That's why it tends to work better for black than white, and why it's untenable for white as an opening choice against grandmasters and the like.

Is it good enough for club or blitz play?  Sure.  Even still, it's probably best to have options planned in the event of troubling early responses by black.

Here's an old Yaacov Norowitz lecture on it.  He was one of the highest ranked and most successful blitz players in the US in the era before online blitz exploded, and played a repertoire based around stonewalls and Colles.  (Though, FWIW, he's since moved on from it.)

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2006/yaacov-lecture.htm

SK4R3KR0W Thanks you so much, thats absolutelly gold!

By the way, it's like unreal how easily ppl quickly looses againts this unusual system:

Grandmasters have excellent positional chess knowledge. The Stonewall attack and defense have holes and weak squares. Non Masters don't have that positional understanding to exploit those positional weakness.

Just to be clear, note the OP and this thread is concerned with the Stonewall ATTACK, not the Stonewall (Dutch) DEFENSE.