At least this new Pert DVD has a chapter "05: 7...Ne4 8.Nxe4 fxe4 9.Ne1 - Video notation [13:12]"

He should cover 9.Ne1 d5 10.Be3! there, but I won't bet he does, as there seems to be almost a secret pact of authors and analysts ignoring this line. Even when I brought it up right here, the thread quickly swung back to focusing on the sharper 9.Nd2 d5 10.f3, which seems unnecessary when White has such a simple and strong alternative...

I am thinking of this DVD for buy, would you recommend ¿ The other resource on Classical Dutch that I remember is the book by Williams.

MNb wrote on 10/04/18 at 08:21:29:

I thought you wanted to play Ne4 before white has played Nc3 so you can first exchange on c3 before white can do on e4. It is Nxe4 which we consider as one of the most critical tests so avoiding it would be great.

Personally I am also not used watching DVDs about chess. I guess I am also old fashioned as I notice that the younger players prefer DVDs above books. I also have my doubts in how much content can be included in a DVD unless there are some pgn files attached which include additional analysis. However considering how easily this can be illegally copied, only few editors want to take such risks.

Has anybody reviewed the new DVD from the English grandmaster Nicholas Pert: https://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/pert_the_aggressive_classical_dutch?ref=R...?
How does it stand against the analysis provided here?

You are right, 10. e3 c5 is unplayable. This leaves 10...Na6.

brabo wrote on 03/13/18 at 18:48:11:

My analysis after 18.Bc3 went cxd4 19.exd4 Rac8 20.Qd3 Rb8 21.Rad1 Nc7 22.Be4 h6 23.Qe2 Nd5 (23...b5?! 24.a3 might be similar, but also allows 24.Rxf6!?) 24.Bd3 Bg5 25.Qe4 Rf5 26.Rxf5 exf5 27.Qxf5 Qxf5 28.Bxf5 Kf7, which looked like a draw in spite of White's extra pawn. But I admit that it looks shaky - there exist strong alternatives, like 26.Rfe1 Re8 27.Re2. So I have to accept that this is a refutation.

brabo wrote on 03/13/18 at 18:48:11:

Both moves lead to the same position, 17.Ng4 Bxg4 18.Qxg4 c6, for example 19.Bd2 Qd6 20.Rac1 Rad8 21.b4 b5 and it seems to me that Black defends his (passive) position. - Since 13.Bd2 seems "strong enough" after your Nxd7, we don't need to discuss 13.b3 further.

brabo wrote on 03/12/18 at 16:56:38:

In my database the move order 10.e3 was chosen in 10 games, versus 10.f3 in 134 games. The main reason could be 10.e3 c5 which scored 50% in five games. If Black wanted to transpose to my line, it would be via 10.e3 Na6 (not Bf6?!). For example 11.f3 exf3 12.Nxf3 Bf6 with a transposition (or perhaps 12....dxc4 13.Ne5 Bf6 +=).

After 12...Na6 your reply 13.b3 b6 14.cxd5 exd5 may be best. A possible continuation: 15.Ne5 Re8 16.Qh5 Be6 17.Ba3 Bxe5 18.Qxe5 Qd7 19.Rf2 c6 20.Raf1 Rad8 21.Qh5 Nc7 22.e4 a5 23.e5 Nb5 24.Bb2 c5 25.dxc5 bxc5 26.Qe2 with a choice between 26...c4 27.a4 c3 with a likely draw, and riskier attempts of 26...Qc6/b7 inviting h4-h5.

The variation 10.f3 Nc6 11.e3 exf3 12.Nxf3 b6 13.Bd2 Bb7 (13...a5!?) 14.Rc1 Qd7 15.Qa4 a5 16.a3! Rf7 17.Ne1! Bf6 18.cxd5 exd5 19.Nd3 Nd8 20.Qxd7 Rxd7 21.Nf4 c6 22.h4 can be seen as "unpleasant" for Black, to use brabo's word. After a few hours the PC gives the following continuation: 22...Ba6 23.Rf2 Bb5 24.b3 a4 25.bxa4 Rxa4 (+0.43), and from this point both sides are only shuffling their pieces around (or so it seems to me), without achieving much. The plus for White is real, but there are no realistic pawn breaks.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/12/18 at 12:01:57:

The engines still give a small edge for white but I agree that with correct play black should be able to draw thanks to the opposite bishops. Of course you don't want to defend this voluntarily against anybody.
Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/12/18 at 12:01:57:

I already had 12..Na6 in my notes. The analysis continued with 13.b3 b6 14.cxd5 exd5 with some advantage for white.
Also I already remarked on my original post that white can inverse the move-order by playing first 10.e3 and only after 10...Nc6 play 11.f3. Then 10....Bf6 gives white the extra possibility of 11.b4
Anyway many continuations for both sides are possible. Till now I like the most 13...a5. I would need to spend a week at it to come to a more complete verdict but I will not do. For sure black needs to memorize a lot of only moves against a whole bunch of interesting white lines. It is not practical for standard chess.

MNb wrote on 03/10/18 at 10:05:09:

16...Rad8 is a good idea, also looks more natural than the PC's 16...Rf6 (which is good enough imo). The surprise 19.Ne5? b5! is nice. 19.Qc4 may result in a draw after 19...Rc8 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.dxe5 Qxd2 22.Bxb7 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Rf8 24.Qxe6+ Kh8 25.Rxf8+ Bxf8 26.Qf7 Qxe3+ 27.Kg2 Qd2+ followed by Qd8. 

brabo wrote on 03/07/18 at 10:58:51:

One day I might return to that K. Gambit. There was a serious problem with one line...

About your desire to get messy positions, even "play for a win" with Black, I feel these things are totally different in correspondence chess, and I am the wrong guy to advise corr players. Playable lines in OTB chess can be truly problematic in correspondence. "Play for a win" - the Evans Gambit would be a great choice for that. It has worked for WM Purdy even in correspondence chess. But the sharpest Evans Gambit lines today look like a forced draw... the task to identify "messy" lines fit to go for a 0-1 in correspondence looks more and more like Mission Impossible.

Even 13...a5 may be "too late" to generate chances for Black. It's too solid for that. If I were pressed for a suggestion, I'd say that 10...Bf6! looks "messier" to me than 10...Nc6. For example 11.e3 exf3 12.Nxf3 Na6* 13.Bd2 dxc4 14.Qc2 c5, tackling the center. 15.Qxc4 Bd7 16.Ne5 Qe8 17.a4 Bxe5 would then create a position evaluated by the engine as better for White. But I don't think this is true, how is White supposed to make progress? Just the usual overestimation of the bishop pair...

* This would be a novelty in my database, or N in Quality Chess speak (n in my version, no serious checking of books).