Because they're content with equality as black while they want to get an advantage as white, which is not possible with the Stonewall attack.
That's the reason? and yet the advantage they get with many openings is negligible.
A gross over-generalization below ...
Masters are mostly trying to win with white. The Stonewall Attack is difficult to win against a knowledgable opponent.
Masters often aim for a draw as Black. Masters who play the Stonewall Defence are trying to win, not draw, but there is greater risk of a loss with it than with something QGD-ish or Slav-ish.
Because they're content with equality as black while they want to get an advantage as white, which is not possible with the Stonewall attack.
That's the reason? and yet the advantage they get with many openings is negligible.
One reason might be becuase it may give equality early
Another reason I also believe they don't play it that often is becuase of g6 systems. I believe they do very well against it.
Just like the Catalan/g3 system does good against the Dutch Stone Wall.
The Catalan/g3 system like that just destroy's man. Its like the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian Dragon. White just has a huge winning score with it. It doesn't stop players from playing the Sicilian Dragon or the Dutch but its just a huge problem.
How exactly can you avoid it? With the white piece's. Your move order will have to be very precise.
f4 - e3 - c3 - d4
Will have to be played if you plan on playing a White Stone Wall but what exactly will be your move order and your first move?
If you play 1.d4 than 1...Nf6 is a huge main response. Going into Gruenfelds, Benoni's, KID's.
If you play 1.f4 than you lines like 1...e5 From's Gambit, 1...Nf6, 1...g6 and 1...d5 all other mainline response to 1.f4
How can you avoid it?
Your going to have to play 1.e3 or 1.c3
If your opponent doesn't play a g3 or g6 system against your stonewall dutch whether it is with white or black than you will win. So try to find move's to make it so they don't play those system's against you. An you will win.
A gross over-generalization below ...
Masters are mostly trying to win with white. The Stonewall Attack is difficult to win against a knowledgable opponent.
Masters often aim for a draw as Black. Masters who play the Stonewall Defence are trying to win, not draw, but there is greater risk of a loss with it than with something QGD-ish or Slav-ish.
hmmm that makes absolute sence and yet one cannot help but notice the irony. :D
none of that seems remotely problematic for white, a knight is still coming to e5, a pawn is still coming to g4 making the knight on h6 look silly, h4 is still possible and that finachetto system of blacks is looking real shaky
none of that seems remotely problematic for white, a knight is still coming to e5, a pawn is still coming to g4 making the knight on h6 look silly, h4 is still possible and that finachetto system of blacks is looking real shaky
I tryed your line out for the first time and I lost. I hope your happy with yourself for convincing me to play it so I could lose.
lol I'm just kidding it was unrated any way.
Masters and above don't really play the Stonewall caveman kingside attack style. This simply does not work against correct play. The correct way to go is b6, Bb7 and c6-c5. This is a solid attempt for equality, and solid attempts for equality in closed positions with an additional tempo are usually insufficient for an opening advantage.
Because they're content with equality as black while they want to get an advantage as white, which is not possible with the Stonewall attack.
This response was the reason I didn't make any comments myself. Melvin answered the question succinctly and well on the first try!
True, but I thought it had to be added that against correct play, going g4, g5, Rf3 and checkmate some moves later does not quite work out. 
Judging from some of the other comments, you were right to point that out!
I am sorry but the idea that masters play for a win with the stonewall with the black pieces but cannot also do the same with the white pieces makes no logical sense to me. Ok I understand that they dont like the idea that they cannot get an opening advantage with the white pieces but it still is difficult to comprehend. Is there something different about playing it with the black pieces which means they are more likely to win? Furthermore there are a plethora of openings which lead to alledged equality that masters utilise when they need a win. Kamsky with his London system, Yusupov with his Colle just by way of example.
I am sorry but the idea that masters play for a win with the stonewall with the black pieces but cannot also do the same with the white pieces makes no logical sense to me. [...] Furthermore there are a plethora of openings which lead to alledged equality that masters utilise when they need a win. Kamsky with his London system, Yusupov with his Colle just by way of example.
It's rather simple: You can take extra risks and play very sharp openings like the King's Indian, the Modern Benoni or the Leningrad Dutch, aiming for immediate imbalance and chances of counterplay, but making positional concessions on the way there. That reduces the chances for a draw and raises the chances for a win or loss. That is one way to play for a win.
Or you can play a solid opening like QGD, Slav or (to a slightly lesser extend) Stonewall Dutch, and aim to equalize slowly. Once you have equalized, you can look for ways to gain an advantage. Once you have an advantage you can try to build on it. That is the other way to play for a win.
Many years ago, Nigel Short had to beat Mikhail Gurevich with black in order to qualify for the world championship cycle. Gurevich was leading him by half a point. Guess how Short played for a win? French Defense. Gurevich chose the Exchange Variation and that's what happened: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1124451
Kamsky is an exception. He is an extremely experienced player with strong technique and practical skills, but he is also aged and lacks motivation to constantly work on his openings. That's why he often just goes for equal positions as white, in which he hopes to be able to play out his strenghts, while avoiding theoretical discussions.
The problem I think with the stonewall as white is that black going second can copy white and there's nothing white can really do about it. This problem is magnified by the fact that tempi matter much less in closed positions and white won't have sufficient force to open the position if black plays correctly.
I Finally won a game with the Stone Wall. WOOOO HOOOO I only had to find a player who was ranked lower than me who would play extremely Passive but when I found one than I won WOOOO HOOOOO
Lucky the game was unrated and we was playing for fun. However, their it goes the caveman Dutch Stone Wall
Kamsky is an exception. He is an extremely experienced player with strong technique and practical skills, but he is also aged and lacks motivation to constantly work on his openings. That's why he often just goes for equal positions as white, in which he hopes to be able to play out his strenghts, while avoiding theoretical discussions.
Ok I understand but can you not say exactly the same things from the perspective of white? What meaninful advantage does white have from the Berlin variation of the Lopez? His pawns are balanced by blacks two bishops. I was also aware of the Short game, that what happens when you play for a draw.
How come masters still play the stonewall with the black pieces but they dont play it with the white pieces?