These things happen.  What are you gonna do [shrugging in a perhaps Brooklynesque/Joe Pesci fashion]?

No ...Qa5+ without ...c6.

ErictheRed wrote on 01/17/08 at 22:22:18:


If 5.b3 Bd6, White plays 6.Ba3 immediately.   

DrKibzwang wrote on 01/16/08 at 19:43:13:


As I tried to research a repertoire based on the French and Stonewall some years ago, I noticed an interesting coincidence: GMs Gleizerov and Ulibin both played this almost exclusively, and with a big overlap of specific lines (Classical French and Tarrasch 3...Nf6, for example). I thought it a fair assumption that they had worked on these openings together, but that is just specualation on my part. Anway, someone looking for model games in this repertoire can double the number of games by looking at Ulibin too!

Both GMs have very satisfactory results with Black, almost matching their ratings, which says something about their deep understanding of that limited repertoire. Ulibin does though seem to have expanded a bit in recent years, playing both the French Winawer and the Sicilian.

I'm wondering if White can take advantage of the Stonewall Dutch by delaying ..c4.

For example, 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 d5 

In the main line, 5.c4 c6 6.0-0 Bd6 7.b3 Qe7, the attempt to trade bishops with 8.a4 is met by 8..a5, fixing White's q-side pawns.  This plan seems to be working pretty well for Black, which means White needs to deviate earlier or try a different 8th move.

But what about 5.b3 c6 6.0-0 (if 6.Ba3?? Bxa3 7.Nxa3 Qa5+) 6..Bd6 and now 7.Ba3 Bxa3 8.Nxa3 Qe7 9.Qc1.  Is this better for White than the line above?  On the plus side, he has succeeded in exchanging the bishops without compromising his pawn structure.  On the down side,  he has misplaced his N on a3 and his Q on c1, but maybe this can be rectified?

Any thoughts?

The Dutch Stonewall opening survey by Moskalenko in Chessbase Magazine 120/121 has made me interested in this variation again.

Especially, I find his handling of the black side against the english/reti setups (often including a ..Ng4 knight jump) interesting.

Alias, have you got any more info on the new Stonewall book by Aagaard, i.e. extent of changes from first edition, when available etc?

I agree.... 3.-,dxe4 should not be a problem for black... (that is - after 1.Nf3 d5 2.d3 Nf6 3.e4)

Geof_Strayer wrote on 02/17/06 at 06:15:14:


What is wrong with 3.e4 there?  You are surely not going to snatch the pawn?!

I was too fast and forgot to include the moves 6.., c6 7. Nc3. 

1. Nf3, f5 2. c4, Nf6 3. g3, e6 4. Bg2, d5 5. 0-0, Bd6 6. d3 (After 6. d4 a normal stonewall setup will be reached with 6.., c6), 0-0  (Black should not play 6.., c6 due to 7. Nc3+/=) 7. Nc3 (Hoping to get again 7.., c6 8. cd5: ed5: 9. e4+/= on the board)

but black has better and completely different ideas.

..., dc4: 8. dc4:, Nc6 is interesting and I tested it with success in some games
.., Nc6 with very interesting possibilities
.., Na6 looks extravagant but leads to interesting play because 8. e4?!, fe4: 9. de4:, de4: 10. Qb3+, Kh8 11. Ng5, Nc5 12. Nf7+:?, Rf7: 13. Qf7:, Be6 -+ fails

Inn2, the answer to your question is that Black can meet a very early Bf4 with Be7 and just carry on playing an old-fashioned ...Be7 Stonewall in which Bf4 is not supposed to be one of White's better moves (see various NN-Botvinnik games).

There will be a new Stonewall book by Aaagaard. Published soon by Quality Chess.

Inn2,

No, Aagaard doesnt threat your moveorder. He seams to only cover Bf4 after black has played Bd6....
Btw, he spends 18 pages on the Bf4 variations....

I have Aagaard's book (although no longer play the Stonewall) and would say it's one of his better titles.  There's a very, very long introduction (like alumbrado, I post from work so can't remember exactly but I think it was like 50 pages or something) to the defence which covered structures, typical middlegame positions etc., all in a more fleshed-out version of what Aagaard did in his Sveshnikov book in fact, and this was helpful to me at my casual level, FWIW.

This thread has been quiet for a while now....

How does the leading Stonewall players (AND, who are they?) cope with the Nf3/c4/d3 setup? Do they play the stonewall-Be7 variation or something totally different?

Yes, I have noticed that Aagaard has written a book about the Stonewall Dutch, but the reviews I have read online do not give a good impression. I thought there might be other, and maybe better, books out there. Is the Aagaard book worth the money?

------------------------------------------------------------------
White should not play an early Nc3, because of d4.

6.d3 Be7 is indeed Black`s best option, but according to Chesslab, white scores an astonishing 68% from this position, which makes me think that it might not be so good for black after all. Instead of going for e4, which is not as good when the bishop is on e7, white can play b3, fiancheto his bishop and/or go for queenside expansion.

Examplegame:

[Event "POL-chT"]
[Site "Krynica"]
[Date "1997.09.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Krasenkow,Michal"]
[Black "Kveinys,Aloyzas"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A10"]
1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6 5.0-0 d5 6.d3 Be7 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 a5 
9.Nc3! Na6 10.a3 Nc5 11.b4 axb4 12.axb4 Rxa1 13.Qxa1 Na6 14.b5 Nc5 15.Qa7 cxb5 16.Nxb5 dxc4 
17.dxc4 Nfe4 18.Ne5 Nd2 19.Re1 f4 20.Bd4 Ndb3 21.e3 fxg3 22.hxg3 Bd7 23.Bxc5 Bxc5 24.Qxb7 Bxb5 
25.cxb5 Qd6 26.Nc4 Qd8 27.Qc6 Qf6 28.Rf1 Bb4 29.b6 Nd2 30.Nxd2 Bxd2 31.b7 Qe5 32.Bh3 Kh8 
33.Qxe6 Qb8 34.Qc8 Qd6 35.Rd1  1-0

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I`ve been experimenting with the Stonewall in some online games. I am just wondering; what happens if white opts for an EARLY b3, planning to exchange bishops? Black has no time then for Bd6 and Qe7. For instance: 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g6 Nf6 4. Bg2 d5 5.b3?! or 4.c4 d5 b3?!
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, indeed - Aagaard's book, mentioned by Geof Strayer in his initial post, is very good imho.  It was published a couple of years back, I think, by Everyman.
Before he started churning out these "Excelling at ..." books, which are just coming too thick and fast at the moment for me to believe they are any good ...

I just happen to play the English and when black tries to play the Stonewall I am just delighted because of the possibility of playing d3 and a quick e4. Putting the black bishop on d6 is not black best option in these positions.

In Tony Kosten`s recommendable book "The Dynamic English" he makes the following apt remark:

`In the main Dutch positions white needs to make a great deal of careful preparation to play e4: indeed, he might never be able to play it at all.... When, or rather if, White does successfully achieve the e4 break, it often leads to his advantage. With the white d-pawn on d3, however, it is almost impossible to stop white playing e4 whenever he wants.`

In my games, I score consistently well with this simple, yet effective plan.

The black bishop is vulnerable on both d6 and c5, best  is to just let it stay at e7, as you have commented above, when d5 has `less effect`, according to Kosten.

Why is it that in the mainline Stonewall dutch, Be7 is considered worse than Bd6? Any specific reasons or strong lines for white I need to be aware of?

Palliser's coverage (with the move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Bg5) starts at the bottom right on page 85 game 14.  He appears to be very thorough here covering 4...Nf6, 4...Be7, 4...f6, 4...Bb4+, and 4...Qb6.

     Thanks for all your advice.     After looking at some lines, and thinking about if for a bit, I have decided to follow alumbrado's suggestion (seconded by OldSchool) of playing for a Classicall (i.e., Be7) Stonewall from the 1.Nf3 move order.  According to Khalifman in vol. 3 of his Opening for White According to Kramnik, after 1.Nf3 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 d5 White's best move is 6. d4, transposing into the Classical Stonewall, because 6. d3 (or even 6. Nc3 0-0 7. d3) can be met with d4!? by Black, with interesting complications.  So it does not look like White can use the 1.Nf3 move order to profitably avoid the Classical Stonewall.

    Of course, the Classical Stonewall with Be7 seem to have a worse reputation than the Modern Stonewall with Be7, and all of my sources (Khalifman, NCO and Aagaard's book on the Stonewall) seem to agree that White can obtain an advantage against the Classical.  However, there are far fewer games in this variation than the Modern Stonewall, and it appears to be relatively less explored. Also, there are some interesting ideas in this line, such as Nc6 rather than Pc7-c6 in some positions.  Both  Short and Agdestein have played the Classical in the past and with some success.  Besides, at my level of chess, understanding of the position is far more important than the difference between a += and = evaluation.

In any event, I suppose the practice with the Stonewall structure will be good for my understanding of the opening as a whole, even if ultimately I decide to look for something else.  Thanks again, everybody, for your help and good advice.

                             - Geof

There are dangers of getting dragged into some fairly heavy QGD/Semi-Slav theory here if you are not careful, or of ending up in an inferior version of the Stonewall.  By and large, if White can get his Bc1 out and then play e3 (rather than g3), he is often doing very well.
For example:

1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 d5 3.d4 c6 4.Bg5!? is a tricky line recommended by Richard Palliser in Play 1.d4.  You ain't gonna get a very good Stonewall from there ...

1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 d5 3.d4 c6 4.Qc2!? is also a possible problem, as 4...f5 and 4...Nd7 can both be met by 5.Bf4.  Perhaps 4...Bd6!? here, although then 5.Nc3 forces Black to commit to 5...f5 (otherwise 6.e4!), and then 6.Bg5 looks annoying again.

1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 d5 3.d4 f5 4.Bf4 (or again 4.Bg5!?) also looks good for White.  Or he can exchange on d5 first if he prefers ...

First let me say that Alumbrados suggestions seems to be  an excellent one since Be7 and Bd6 stonewalls are structually very similar with similar plans and schemes.

Nevertheless, the main fault in your thinking process is that your opponent will be prepared for every single line of any opening while you have only a limited repertoire to choose from. If true, you are at a severe disadvantage!

Of course, your opponent can play 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 but few players (excluding GMs) will actually do so, unless they have studied both the open games and closed games thouroughly. You fear your opponent will be prepared for it but on the other hand your opponent can be sure you are only prepared for a limited repertoire? Maybe your opponent will refrain from playing 2.e4 because he is afraid that you have prepared a sideline of the open sicilian he is unfamiliar with!

Besides these underrated psychological thoughts you might play 1.Nf3 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 b6 which is a Queens Indian-Dutch Mix which is not possible after 1.d4 f5 2.g3

Unfortunately there are few systems for Black to compete against 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 taking acount of all different move orders.

Move order Problems are very common in modern chess and there is no ideal solution. For example player who only has the Nimzo and the Bogoindian in his repertoire has problems after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3

That´s life or as Alumbrado would say "Asi es la vida"

Stefan

    Hello.  I am not sure this is the proper forum for this message, but since I am hoping to get some response from Dutch players, I am putting it here.   

   I have lately been experimenting with the Dutch Stonewall and have been having good results in the main lines after 1.d4 e6 (I also play the French so I use the 1...e6 move order to avoid some anti-Dutch lines) 2.c4 f5 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 c6 5. Nf3 d5 6.0-0 Bd6 and 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 d5 5.Nh3.  I think Jacob Aagaard makes a pretty good case in his book "Dutch Stonewall" that the main lines are at least very playable for Black, and I have hadn't encountered any real theoretical difficulties in these main lines in internet blitz games against players up to IM strength (although I have had other difficulties not associated with the opening!). I have also had good experiences with most of the lines in which White avoids the kingside fianchetto, and the "Slav Stonewall" positions (i.e., White adopts an e3/c4/c4 pawnstructure with the Bc1 "inside" the structure).  Overall, my experience in the Stonewall-type positions been quite pleasant,and I think that the Stonewall is a good fit for French players like me who are used to the problems associated with light-squared pawn complexes and have a strategic bent.

     However, there is a move-order issue which has come up again and again in my games and for which I have not yet arrived at a satisfactory answer: namely, what to play when White plays 1.Nf3.  More and more d4/c4 players seem to be adopting this move order these days with the intention of transposing into mainline 1.d4 or 1.c4 openings after possibly "move-ordering" players (like me!) out of their preferred lines.  In Vol. 3 of his Opening for White According to Kramnik,  Khalifman shows that White can avoid the Modern Stonewall (with Bd6 rather than Be7) by playing 1. Nf3, 2.c4, 3. g3, 4. Bg2, 5.0-0 and sometimes 6. Nc3, keeping the option  open of playing d3 and e4 (rather than d4) if Black adopts a Stonewall setup with 1...f5, 2...Nf6, 3..e6, 4...d5, and 5...c6.  Without going into too much detail here, Khalifman makes a pretty convincing case that after d3 and e4 against a Stonewall structure (i.e., pawns on f5/e6/d5/c6), White gets a nice edge.  So it seems almost like Black needs a backup defense against 1.d4 and/or 1.c4 for White players who use the 1.Nf3 move order to tranpose into 1.d4/1.c4 variations.  I am not so worried about the 1.c4 move order because after 1...e5 White has lost his ability to transpose back into mainline d4 positions and I play 1...e5 against 1.c4 just for this reason.

     Of course, when White uses this move order it is possible to play for a Leningrad or Classical Dutch system against which the idea of delaying d4 and keeping the option of d3 and e4 has less point.  However, I would rather avoid letting White "move order" me into a different variation of the Dutch than the one I wanted to play.  I also don't like the idea of having to learn a back-up defense against 1.d4 lines which works against the 1.Nf3 move order.  If I have to learn a back-up defense, I might as well just go ahead and play something like the Slav in the first place.
    
     Simply stated, I am hoping for a solution which allows me to prevent White from playing any 1.d4 systems if White prevents me from playing the Stonewall by the 1.Nf3 move order and then delaying d4.   I don't mind forcing some variation of the English as long as it is (i) consistent with my repertoire (e.g., after 1.Nf3 I cannot play 1...c5 because White can play 2. e4 and I find myself in a Sicilian rather than my beloved French), and (ii) sound without involving learning an enormous amount of theory.  I have experimented with the move order 1. Nf3 e6 2. c4 c5, but basically there are simply way too many ways White can play this position and  it is a nightmare to prepare for Black (another bad move order!).   

     I am wondering if  there are any experienced Stonewallers (or anybody else) out there who have considered this somewhat vexing move-order issue, and how they have resolved it.  I would be grateful for any advice or input. 

                         - Geof Strayer