Glenn Snow wrote on 03/26/09 at 00:46:52:


Indeed that is the move given in ECO, which thinks it should lead to a slight advantage for White.

OK, the problem with the English move-order vs. the Stonewall is supposed to be the d3+Nbd2+Qc2 => e4 set-up:

e.g.: 1. c4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 d5 5. O-O c6 6. d3 Bd6 7. Nbd2 Nbd7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. e4 fxe4 10. dxe4 dxe4 11. Nxe4 NxNe4 12. QxNe4 e5 gives problems to Black;

instead, how about: 1. c4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 d5 5. O-O c6 6. d3 Bd6 7. Nbd2 Nbd7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. e4 dxe4 10. dxe4 f4!? (threatens also ...e5)

[Note: Black better not neglect the move ...Nbd7, since on 7. Nbd2 O-O 8. Qc2 e5 9. e4 dxe4 10. dxe4 f4? 11. gxf4 exf4? 12. e5!]

seems interesting

chk wrote on 03/04/09 at 09:04:25:



Thank you chk, for your effort and prooving some of my statements right.

The Bf4-problem only occurs if you use the d5/e6/c6 move order excusively to get to the stonewall. In the position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3/Nf3 e6 White will play one of the following moves in 98% of your games:

4.e4 if 3.Nc3 - the Marshall-gambit - good knowledge necessary
4.cxd - no problem after 4....cxd and later Bf5, solving all usual QGD problems with the bishop

4.e3 Bd6 5.Bd3/Nf3 f5! - no 5.g4 available, the above mentioned good Stonewall version

4.Nf3/Nc3 f5? 5.Bf4! - in this position, f5 is not a good choice. 
Because the waiting move 4.Bd6 is now met by 5.e4, Black has no other choice but playing Semi-Slav-Mainlines (4....Sf6) or the
"Noteboom variation" which I recommended above. 

It is a lot of work, but worth it, because it is really difficult to play for white - and in the range < ELO 2000 you will rarely find a white specialist in this line. Theoretically, there is no advantage for White - even Schandorff in his new QG-book offers no clear way to a White advantage (like he does in most other variations). And while searching for it, he completely ignores the mainlines in the Noteboom - he will know why!

Delay f5 by playing 1….d5 or, if the French is OK for you, the even better 1…e6 (avoids Trompowsky) and you don´t have to deal with the Staunton or some Anti-Dutch-variations.

I don't know, but i wouldnt mind as a black player if white playes staunton gambit, it gives black a very comfortable position if he knows his theory.

OK, I'm a bit late again in posting in this thread, but I was actually putting some efforts to learn the Stonewall and have also tested Derdudea's propositions in a few (~15) internet blitz games (didn't have time to look at Dragan Glas' 4. f3 and tafl's early Ne4 suggestions though). So to sum it up:

a) If one uses the Dutch move-order (1. ... f5):
- Cons: Anti-Dutch lines: Staunton Gambit (2. e4), Kortchnoj Gambit et al (2. h3 + g4 or 2. g4), 2. Bg5 & 3. Nc3 (or vice versa), 2. Qd3 +e4, 2. Bf4 and maybe the Lisitsyn Gambit (1. Nf3 & 2. e4) depending on your repertoire;
- Pros: Keeps the useful option to alternate between various Dutch systems, like the Classical, Stonewall, the hybrid Leningrad Stonewall, Leningrad or Anglo-Dutch (e.g. I hear the Stonewall may fare badly vs. the English).

b) If one uses the QGD/Slav move-order (I have tried only 1. d4 d5 2. ... e6 & 3. ... f5 or 3. ... c6 & 4. or 5. ... f5 / unfortunately 1. ... e6 does not fit my Black repertoire):
- Cons:
i) Anti-lines: the BDG or DDG (despite all the hype it was the 1st time I've had to face this, but I had read an interesting artcile by TopNotch , sacing a pawn back, and duly crushed one opponent), cannot exclude White’s persistency for the Qd3 / Nc3 & e4 set-ups, or early-Bg5;
ii) It is difficult to avoid the complicated 4. g4 or 5. g4-lines;
iii) You may get move-ordered out of the Stonewall ‘modern’ Bd6 set-up => if you are in search of chess truth, this is enough reason to ultimately choose the 'Dutch move-order' , however, in practice I see that not many White players follow this plan (in my case it was 0 out of ~15 games; I am an intermediate player and it was only blitz - still enough to get a taste);
iv) One has to play the Anglo-Dutch+Leningrad vs. the English move-order? (I've seen some alternatives, e.g. Moskalenko's dxc4 approach, but consider this an outstanding on which I'll get back when I'll find more info - I have an 'English spy' ).
- Pros: May lead to a favourable Stonewall:
i) White will use less frequently the (solid) g3/Bg2 set-up => you may get the chance for more K-side attacks;
ii) Most of the times the nasty Nh3 set-up won’t be available due to Nf3 being played;
iii) Many times Nc3 will have been played (considered inferior to Nbd2);
From my experiments I think Derdudea was right about i)-iii) / those kind of 'improved' positions resulted in 3 out of 4 games.

So this is my input (100% backing Derdudea here) and you can all choose depending on your short-term and long-term goals (I decided to use both move-orders, but start with the QGD move-order to reduce White's alternatives in the short-run and use the Be7 Stonewall if forced to).

Consider me an absolute beginner on this area of chess openings - so all feedback is welcome.. and sorry for the long post - it's a rather many-faceted topic

The book 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' (http://sverreschesscorner.blogspot.com/2008/07/win-with-stonewall-dutch.html) is due to be released in the next couple of months and should be a very useful complement to Aagaard's Stonewall book. 

There are also some interesting comments in the given link that cover the Dutch; near the end of the webpage Sverre discusses some move-order issues for Black and how to best resolve them.

There actually is a couple of alternatives but they all have some drawbacks. One possibility is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ne4!?which I occasionally play in blitz. It has been played by some strong players but only as a surprise weapon.