There's one line in the book that has caused me trouble so far and I don't really know how to play against it. In the Chigorin I'd like to hear what people think about the line I had to face in the following correspondence game:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bf4 Bxf3 6. gxf3 Bd6 7. Bg3 Nge7 8.
e3 f5 9. Bxd6 Qxd6 10. f4 O-O 11. Rg1 dxc4 12. Qa4 a6 13. Qxc4 b5 14. Qe2 Na5
15. O-O-O c5 16. Kb1 cxd4 17. Rxd4 Qc7 18. Bg2 Rad8 19. Rgd1 Rxd4 20. exd4 Qd6
21. d5 exd5 22. Nxd5 Ng6 23. h4 Nc6 24. h5 Nge7 25. Qe3 Nxd5 26. Rxd5 Qe7 27.
Rc5 1-0

I think that 8...f5 has to be a serious improvement on the Kramink-Morozevich game that the book quotes - in fact it seems like the lines Morozevich plays in the Chigorin are always the best ones (and too many authors relegate them to the variations - one of the worst examples being Dunnington's "Attacking with 1.d4", who has what is nowadays the main line with just subvariation status and bases his recommendation on what his chess engine told him).
In the game above I had the feeling that I got a fairly poor position out of the opening, but my opponent didn't play agressively enough on the queenside and suddenly even managed to get into a lost endgame.
He said that in a different ICCF correspondence chess game he faced 9.c5 Lxg3 10.hxg3 and white had chances on the kingside (that game continued 10...b6 11.cxb6 axb6 12.f4 0-0 13.Qh5), however I rejected this variation due to fearing 10...e5!?.

Do people have any thoughts on how one should play in this variation? It would be nice to play that line as white, as it seems otherwise fairly easy to play.

Thanks for people's kind words. Feedback always welcome.
The Dutch is an annoying choice for such a book as each variation after g3 and c4 (Classical, Stonewall and Leningrad) is both theoretical and also quite hard to understand. 2 Nc3! thus seems a much better practical weapon for the club player. However, Black does have other moveorders, but then not all White players will meet 1 d4 e6 with 2 c4 nor 1 d4 d6 with 2 c4. Incidentially 1 d4 d6 2 c4 f5 is quite a rare moveorder and, if White is happy about 2...Bg4 (when 3 Qd3!? is an idea), some players may be happy to play 1 d4 d6 2 Nf3 when the line Ben mentions is then possible.
Yes, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 f5 should maybe have had more attention, but Bonsai's line is very good, although in it White can also just castle instead of g4 and still have a pleasant edge.

Play 1.d4! by IM Richard Palliser is an excellent book - Richard is a first rate theoretician, and I would depend on his text for my own opening prep - and I am an IM!

Not the entire game, but he mentions it on page 253.

No, he doesn't cover 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 f5, in the book he recommends 2.c4. In fact against Dutch setups his recommendation almost all seem to involve avoiding Ng1-f3 (a move which he seems to like quite quite a lot in most other openings).

Yes, I spotted that problem (Update: Sorry, it actually is covered, it's just not in the index of variations - look on page 241). However I suspect there is a reason why this is a rare move order at master level, it seems to allow a setup that white doesn't usually get to play, because black can normally hold d7-d5 back until white has committed himself to something else.
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bf4 (usually black could respond with some sort of d7-d6 setup to this move) 5...Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Qc2 Ne4 9.g4! Na6 10.a3 Qa5 11.Ke2!
This is a variation in which white score tremendously well. 

But I have to admit that the large number of variations that Palliser recommends against the Dutch has slightly startled me. In particular I'm not at all sure about what I think about the 1.d4 d6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.Qc2 line against the Dutch Leningrad, is it really particularly good or was it just a quick way of covering that line?

Oh, I just remembered that I have a good example of how good the book is. Two months ago I tried the line recommened against the Grünfeld in a simultaneous with GM Ftacnik, who is a well-known Grünfeld specialist. He chose a slightly dodgy seeming gambit, possibly trying to punish me in particular, because I explicitly asked him whether he'd play the Grünfeld before the game , but I had read the relevant section in the book and was quite well prepared

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 0-0 8.Nge4 c6 9.dxc6 Nxc6 10.e3 e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.Bc4 a6 13.a4 Bf5 14.0-0 Rc8 15.Bb3 Qb6 16.a5 Qa7 17.Ng3 Bd7 18.Qd2 Rfd8 19.Rfc1 b5 20.e4 Rc5 21.Na2 Nc8 22.Nb4 Bf8 23.Kh1 Rxc1+ 24.Rxc1 Bxb4 25.Qxb4 Qxf2 26.Qc3 Qf6 27.Rf1 Qd6 28.h4 Ne7 29.Qd2 Kg7 30.Qg5 Rf8 31.Nh5+ Kh8 32.Qh6 Rg8 33.Rxf7 1-0

Around move 20 I did give away the advantage I had in the opening, but my position was still okay. Eventually he blundered by playing 29...Kg7 and lost pretty much immediately.