Yes it is a valuable contribution. I happily absorbed it!

In the 6.d4 variation, perhaps 6...Nxd4 is more accurate, if 6...exd4 white has the extra option of 7.Nb5 which might give a tiny edge.

In the 6.g4 (?!) variation, after 6...h5 7.gxh5 black is positionally better! I don't know what Rg1 is doing for white in these positions. I think a better idea is Bg2, maybe even followed by O-O, as in certain King's Gambit positions.

I also prefer 7...Nxf5 although 7...Bxf5 might be okay: 8.Nh4 Be6 9.Ne4 (9.Bg2!?) 9...Qd7 10.Ng5 Bg4!? (10...O-O-O 11.Nxe6 Qxe6 12.Bg2 again possibly with O-O!?) 11.f3 Bf5 12.Nxf5 Nxf5 and I don't know what is happening but as black I would want my bishop!

So 7...Nxf5 8.Bg2 and now:
(a) 8...Ncd4 is still playable. 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Be4!? (10.Ne4).
(b) 8...d5 9.O-O!? and black's center is a little sensitive with Re1 coming.
(c) 8...Be7 (solid but not part of any plan) 9.Ne4 maybe with Ne4-g3.
(d) 8...Be6?! 9.Ng5 Bg8 (9...Qd7 10.Nd5) 10.h4.
(e) 8...Nh4?! 9.Nxh4 Qxh4 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.h4 Be7 12.Bg5.

I do not claim much for white here, I am just trying to suggest white moves that make sense to me, instead of Rg1?! ideas.

TN wrote on 01/29/15 at 06:19:50:

I was waiting for some feedback before I wanted to show proof of my statement that the idea is ok for full equality. Too often I have the feeling that I am the only one sharing information and others just happily absorb. I expect from a forum that more than one person contributes in a thread. I notice lately that there has been less and less theoretical discussions anymore on this forum. That is not good for the existence of this forum but maybe just unavoidable. I wrote last year on my Dutch blog already an article that maybe free chess content is not something normal as it was in the beginning of the internet: http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.be/2014/10/gratis.html

Well enough complaining, time to look at the position.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 01/24/15 at 03:47:52:


My compatriot Tanguy found an astonishing new idea in the mainline which I believe is enough for full equality for black.

So instead of taking back on f5 immediately with the bishop, black plays first Nge7. 
There are no other official games yet with this idea so it is pretty much virgin territory. It is an excellent choice for the tournament player if he did some homework in advance.

I don't remember anymore Brabo; some idea with an early exf5 and d3-d4 put me off of 2...d6, but it's been at least five years since I looked at it.

Not having looked at this in years, I remember thinking that 2...Nc6!? was Black's best move, not playing ...d6 so quickly and using the fact that an early exf5 can be met with ...d7-d5! 

Critical must be 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4, but it's hard for me to believe that Black is in any serious trouble--I could be wrong, though.  Anyway I'd investigate 2...Nc6 if I were playing this way as Black, as I do think that White has good chances of an advantage after 2...d6.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 01/02/15 at 02:32:16:

4..., c5 is recommended in the recent book of Malaniuk: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1374899483/0
I believe whites most challenging answer starts with 5. g3 
If 5... Nf6 then 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bh3
If 5... Nc6 then 6.Nh4 fxe4 7.dxe4

I chose very recently for 4... Nc6 and got very quickly a promising position for black.

An interesting thread! I've been an ardent 1. Nf3 player for some years now and the d3 line is something I've toyed around with after seeing people get hacked up in main line Leningrads. I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments that Black should just be ok without a worry. Maybe a playable position is achievable and d3 isnt the most active move on appearances but its very logical and dangerous immediately trying to open things up. I don't want to give too much away but I have a few thoughts about 2. ... Nc6 which seems the most ambitious move.

After 2. ... Nc6 it seems 3. e4 just isn't very good - I was unaware of Kindermann's suggestion 3. d4 and prepared it a year or two ago for a match using material from SOS and a game I found on CB of my opponents. He slow played a line that's supposed to be inferior for Black to sucker me in before uncorking a novelty he'd had lined up for a while. I can't remember exactly which move was the novelty but I'm happy sharing what I can remember of the game seeing as I dont intend to ever play 3. e4 again...  3. e4 e5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. exf5 d5 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bxf5 9. Bg5 It looks to me like Black has got a vastly improved version of the lines with d6 and in particular is doing well due to 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Qf6 gf 12. Rc1 Bg6 13. Nxd5 0-0-0! 14. Nxc7 Kb8 and good luck trying to defend this position with White...

However although I think Kindermann is a little overly pessimistic about Black's position and White must find some good moves 3. d4 is still challenging.  3. ... e6 was my initial idea upon and at first I thought Black was just ok but now I think this was too hasty. 

A/ 4. d5 looks artificial and after 4. ... exd5 5. Qxd5 Nf6! 6. Qxf5 d5 7. Qd3, a position mentioned earlier in the thread, Black seems to have good compensation. I strongly disagree that it's difficult to get an advantage with Black against the BDG and I'll happily take on anyone willing to give me a pawn on move 2 for nebulous compensation, but not with my queen on the stupid d3/d6  

B/ 4. c4 seems very natural, going into a kind of Nimzo/Queen's/Bogo indian position with certain pros and cons. As White has played d3-d4  and Black has f5 in which is generally useful to fight for e4, the key square in these positions, and Nc6 it seems souped up for Black. However although the move Nc6 is 'free of charge' it may not be well placed and open to a quick d5. 

I haven't looked in detail at 4. ... Qe7 but I really dont understand such a move. Against d5 and planless play by White it does look an appealing and creative attempt that I'd not seen before but if White just ignores it and carries on with Nc3 and g3 what is the queen doing here? I would rather have natural harmony amongst my pieces when available than go into a strange position for the sake of it. Moving the queen to a square where it blocks the bishop going to b4 and fighting for e4 cannot be right to me... 

4. ... Nf6 seems like a much better move, particularly as 5. d5 Bb4+ doesn't work so the first danger is over for Black. After 5. Nc3 Bb4 the position is still complex with chances for both sides and I think that Black isn't doing badly but White surely isn't out of resources trying for the advantage either. 

For me its a simple pragmatic choice, there are a lot of decent Black openings which lead to equal or very close to equal positions with perfect play and this is unavoidable but there is still lots of fight and this is just like any of those. If I have to choose between playing this which is similar to a lot of other d4/Nf3/c4 indian positions that I get frequently and have experience in and having to learn the whole of the Leningrad Dutch and then succesfuly remember all the theory for the one game I get in it whenever the moon happens to be blue I'll take the former. Maybe there's something stronger than both these lines for White anyway...

Hi guys, so what have we concluded as best versus the d3 line?
ZATARA

I think we've shown here that Black actually has to play very carefully against the BDG to gain the advantage.  I'll take the reversed BDG position with White having to play Qd3, especially if a rather calm, strategical engine like Rybka thinks it's OK.

[quote author=Frendo link=1098049385/45#46 date=1176086134]
Looking once again at TalJechin's suggestion of 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4!? e6, I like it a lot more after now having done some study of the Classical Dutch and of the Uberdeker Defence.  After 4.c4, I like TalJechin's 4...Qe7 because it looks good and seems more dynamic to me, but 4...Nf6 (from the game Viking mentioned), 4...Bb4+, and 4...d6 all deserve more investigation (the latter three being more usual moves in the Uberdeker (I think anyway, perhaps he'll respond to this.)[/quote]

Yes, the analogy is interesting. In the comparable UD lines, White has the extra moves e3 or a3, neither of which are particularly useful to him I think. TalJechin's idea of 4...Qe7 is nice and can also be employed after 1. d4 e6 ; 2. c4 Ktc6 ; 3. a3 f5 ; 4. Ktf3 and 3. e3 f5 ; 4. Ktf3, but indeed, 4. ...Bb4+ ; 5. Bb2 Qe7 also intending 6. d5 Ktd8 and  4. ...d6 ; 5. d5 Ktce7 are more typical. 4. ...Ktf6 ; 5.d5 however, is rather awkward for Black.

Quote:



Time moves on, and so does opening theory. I came across a few games and wanted to infuse new life into this discussion:

Have a look at the following game:

[Event "EU-ch 8th"]
[Site "Dresden"]
[Date "2007.04.03"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Roos,Michael"]
[Black "Graf,Alexander"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A04"]
1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.exf5 Bxf5 6.d4 e4 7.Nh4 Bg4 8.Be2 Bxe2 
9.Qxe2 d5 10.Qb5+ Nc6 11.Bg5 Qd7 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qxd5 Qxd5 14.Nxd5 0-0-0 15.Ne3 Nxd4 16.Nhf5 Nxf5 
17.Nxf5 Rg8 18.g3 Rg5 19.Ne3 Rb5 20.Rb1 Bb4+ 21.Kf1 Bc3 22.b3 Rc5 23.a4 Rd2 24.Rd1 Rxd1+ 
25.Nxd1 Bd4 26.c4 Rc6 27.a5 Ra6 0-1

It looks like 11. Qd7 is an improvement over 11. ... Bb4

The other main line is 5. d4 ed4 and now either 5. Qd4 or Nd4:

[Event "EU-ch 8th"]
[Site "Dresden"]
[Date "2007.04.03"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Luechtemeier,Peter"]
[Black "Schiefner,Ray"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A04"]
1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 fxe4 7.Nxe4 Qe7 8.Bd3 d5 
9.Bg5 dxe4 10.0-0-0 Nc6 11.Bb5 Bd7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.Rhe1 Rd8 14.Qc3 Rxd1+ 15.Rxd1 exf3 16.Re1 fxg2 
17.Rxe7+ Bxe7 18.Qe1 Kf7 19.f3 Bc5 0-1



[Event "Polyarniy Krug op"]
[Site "Salekhard"]
[Date "2006.11.29"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Ovetchkin,Roman"]
[Black "Gutenev,Alexander"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A04"]
1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 fxe4 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Bc4 c6 
9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nxe4 d5 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6 12.Qe2+ Kf7 13.0-0-0 dxc4 14.Qxc4+ Be6 15.Nxe6 Qxe6 16.Qb4 b5 
17.Rhe1 Qh6+ 18.f4 Re8 19.Rxe8 Kxe8 20.Qe4+ Kf7 21.Rd8 Qh4 22.Qe8+ Kf6 23.Rd6+ Kf5 24.Qe6+  
1-0


So, what do you think? 

ErictheRed wrote on 01/10/07 at 06:03:39:


I don't know that I agree that Black is any better after 6...Be7, but it does seem that White has nothing.  Thanks for that info.

ErictheRed wrote on 01/10/07 at 06:03:39:


Actually the Nc6-idea goes back to Kindermann's first edition in german, and the main point is not so much gaining time on Ng5 as move ordering white into a line considered good for black. Previously 3...e5 4.d3 was played but then 4.d4! was discovered, which turned out to give white some chances...

Hi Markovich,

After 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 fe 3.Ng5, I like Williams' 3...Nc6.  I don't think White has anything here; in fact, I think Black's better, though I may be missing something.  The key idea is to delay ...Nf6 to try to gain a tempo with ...Be7 hitting the knight on g5.  For instance:

1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Ng5 Nc6 4.d3 e3 5.Bxe3 e5 6.Be2 Be7! and Black's slightly better.  I guess White needs to play a different sixth move, though I'm not sure what; probably 6.d4 ed 7. Bd3 but I'm too lazy right now to look at it.  I remember looking at this whole line a year ago or so and coming to the conclusion that Black is fine.  White definitely gets some compensation, though.  Off the top of my head I'd say that Black probably shouldn't take the piece...maybe I'll look at this again soon.

But for all the talk of 2. d3 here, isn't 2. e4 very strong?  I always thought it was.

At chesspublishing, which section deals with 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 - is it McDonald or Watson territory? 

As the point of 2.d3 is often a delayed switch to a Dutch proper with d3-d4, I'd hope it belongs to Daring Defences, especially since 1...f5 is usually marketed as a reply to almost any 1st move. 

But is it actually so?

Hi, 

I've been enjoying this thread, but I still don't see why 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 is even called a Dutch.  The Dutch is a response to 1.d4 and its transpositions.  1.Nf3 2.d3 doesn't have much in common, strategically, with 1.Nf3 and 2.d4.   ??? 

Of course, as I said, the analysis is still interesting, but it aint a Dutch any more than 1.e3 c5 is a Sicilian. 

In this week's TWIC game collection there was a game very similar to TalJechins Qe7!? idea . Black played 4-,Nf6  Bb4+ and Qe7...

Some quick analysis of 4-,Nf6:
5.d5 seams critical. But isnt black in good shape after exd5.. and Bb4+.. 

At least as far as I know this is the first (?) game with the sequence 2-,Nc6 3. d4 e6...

Black had no problems 

Here is the game:

[Event "6th EICC Qualification"]
[Site "Warsaw POL"]
[Date "2005.07.02"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Roiz, M."]
[Black "Wojtaszek, R."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2579"]
[BlackElo "2569"]

1. Nf3 f5 2. d3 Nc6 3. d4 e6 4. c4 Nf6 5. g3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Qe7 7. Bg2 O-O 8. O-O
Bxd2 9. Qxd2 Ne4 10. Qe3 d6 11. d5 Nb4 12. Nd4 exd5 13. a3 Nc6 14. cxd5 Nxd4
15. Qxd4 Nc5 16. Qc4 a5 17. Nc3 a4 18. Rfe1 Qf7 19. Nb5 b6 20. Qf4 1/2-1/2

Quote:


Well, I think you're right that black shouldn't rush e6-e5. But on the other hand, after 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Qc2 I think that black can just develop with g6, Bg7, Nf7, and d6 or e6-e5. If black just plays for an eventual e6-e5 advance I'm not sure white can touch him. 

And 7...Nf7 may also be viable, as 8.dxe6 dxe6 doesn't accomplish much and even if black would play Nf7 and d6, I'm not so sure d5xe6 Bxe6 would be bad either, it's reminiscent of the solid 7...c6 line in the Leningrad or the Iljin with Qe8 and Nc6-d8.

To me ...Qe7 looks quite logical, as it prepares a thematic e-pawn advance and clears the way for Nc6-d8-f7/xe6. It would probably not be OK after d2-d4, but given Qe7 for free with d2-d3-d4 is another matter. 

Especially since a knight on f7 is usually quite a good piece in KID structures and in the Dutch it may be even better, compare with the Staunton for example - where black gladly allows the knight to be chased to f7 which, despite the time loss, is probably slightly better for black!

So, it would be interesting to see some practical examples of the Qe7 idea. Maybe if Kindermann preaches 1.Nf3! a bit more, one of us will get the chance to try it!

Quote:


The general idea I am getting at is Carlsen's: exploit the weakened K-side by opening center.  This can be prevented by playing ...d5 (which is why I played Bf4 anticipating this).  If Black can develop smoothly without playing d5, we're in business.   So 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4 e6 4.Bf4 Nf6 5.e3 g6 6.Nc3 Bg7and I must agree:  ...d6, ...Qe7, and maybe even ...Bd7, ...O-O-O in some lines is the kind of Dutch I love.  And no ...d5! necessary!

Quote:


Not using a board for this quick reply, but 4.Bf4 Nf6 (or why not 4...d6 as 5.d5 Nd8 6.dxe6 Nxe6 gains time on Bf4.) 5.e3 after this I don't understand your line? But 5...g6 ...Bg7 and ..d6 would be the general plan of development, if white doesn't go d5 Nd8 etc, black should probably be able to play Nd8-f7 and force through e6-e5 sooner or later.

Transposition-wise most regular dutch players are quite flexible, not needing to play a certain set-up as long as the alternative offers dynamic energy. Lately, I've even come to appreciate the Stonewall formation in some minor lines of the Iljin, but with the queen on e7 the Stonewall is not very attractive.

Still no refutation of the ...Qe7 & ...Nd8 plan?

Exchanging the entire Dutch family for a Sicilian one (1.Nf3 d6 2.e4 c5) and a French one (1.Nf3 e6 2.e4 d5) and a Jugoslav one (1.Nf3 d6 2.e4 Nf6) has its disadvantages for White. Are you that scared for Dutch(wo)men?

Is 1. Nf3, f5 2. d3, d5 not an option?

Quote:


Stefan Kindermann's useful articles are still available at

http://chessgate.de/training/training_kindermann/training_kindermann.html

Didn't TalJechin post some analysis regarding: 
1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4 e6 4.c4 Qe7!? 
last week?

Where did this interesting post go? Have I been dreaming? Is it in another thread?

Finally when I had some time to check his analysis the post was gone.... 

Quote:

I seem to recall that Kindermann actually published the analysis of a game that convinced him that it's not good on the training pages of the (German) chessgate website or so I seem to recall (I could be confusing that with some of his other interesting analysed games), but I cannot find Kindermann's training section there at the moment (I think they migrated to a new website, maybe that content got lost?).

I received the english edition of Kindermann's book today. Although I haven't analysed the position after 9.Bf4 extensively, my feeling is that Kindermann and Geof has a good point. Black is uncomfortable in this position. Since I  plan to play the Najdorf Sicilian, I can use the 1...d6 move order. Still, can a move like 2.d3 really be that good?

This is a very interesting thread.  While I agree in principle that after 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Black should have a satisfactory response, it's rather hard to find a specific  line for Black.  A few comments on MNb's suggested lines for Black after 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.Nc3:

(A) If 4...Nf6 5.exf5 Bxf5 6.d4 e4 7.Nh4 Bg4, then 8.Be2 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 d5 10.Qb5+ Nc6 11.Bg5 Bb4  12.Qxb7 Nxd4 has occured in several games, including a game that GM Kindermann lost with Black.  After 13.Bxf6! gxf6 14.0-0 (I don't think 14.0-0-0 is so convincing because of 14...Bxc3 15.bxc3 Rb8 16.Qxa7 Ne2+ 17.Kd2 Nf4 and the position is a mess) 14...Bxb4 (what else? The Pd5 is hanging.)  15.bxc3 Ne2+ 16.Kh1 0-0 17.Rae1 Nf4 (17...Nxc3 is very risky because of 18.Qb3!, and after the apparently forced 18...f5 19.g3 Qf6 20.Re3 White seems to be winning) and after either 18.c4 or 18.g3 Black's position seems too loose, and I would think that White must be much better.  I would go so far as to say that after 9.Qxe2 Black may already be significantly worse.

(B) After 4...Nc6 5.exf5 Bxf5 6.d4 Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4 c6 9.Bf4, I agree with MNb that both 9...Bxc2 (risky, but hard to refute, particularly if the B retreats to f5 after it is attacked by Kd2 or Rc1) and 9...Qf6 are potentially satisfactory for Black.  However, after 9...Qf6 10.Qd2 0-0-0 11.0-0-0 my gut feeling is that Black, with his somewhat loose queenside and his difficulty in developing his pieces to effective squares, is probably going to be struggling to survive against correct play.  (Be3, Ne2 and Qa5 ideas for White look strong in many lines, for example.) And after 9...Bxc2 Black may be objectively okay, but it would probably take the defensive skills of a computer to demonstrate it over the board.  So I don't think either of these lines are entirely satisfactory from the perspective of an aggressive Dutch player.

Notwithstanding the above, and after spending some time looking at the various alternatives to MNb's suggested lines, I have not been able to improve on MNb 's line B above.  Also, I agree with the posts above that the 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 idea is probably just simply bad after 3.d4!.  So is line B above the best Black can hope for after 2.d3!?  I find it a little hard to believe that this could be true, although I'm not sure why.  If it is Black's best line, then it may be a reason to avoid 1...f5 against 1.Nf3, which would be somewhat problematic for many Dutch players.

I am wondering if anyone has any suggested improvements for Black, or any disagreements with my somewhat conclusory analysis above?  This seems to be a critical line for Dutch players.

       - Geof Strayer

Another problem with playing like a Stonewall is the misplaced Knight on c6 and White's abibility to develop his queen-bishop to f4 or g5.  Something like 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4 d5 4.Bf4 perhaps followed by e3, and c4 or maybe Bb5 looks uncormfortable for Black to me.

I usually play 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 with the idea of 3.e4 e5 transposing to an innocuous variation of the Latvian gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d3?! Nc6).
I cannot find the Carlsen game in New In Chess at the moment but I am pretty sure that someone suggested 3.d3-d4!? in reply to 2...Nc6. Despite the loos of tempo, d4-d5 is a real threat. We don't want to play a Stonewall after 3...d5 so Black has to come up with something better.

As you might expect, I will not give up my pet defense very soon. After a short investigation:
1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.Nc3
A) 4...Nf6 5.exf5
-5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 = according to Williams

5...Bxf5 6.d4 e4
-6...Nbd7 is equal (Williams) but what about 7.Bc4!? Maybe 7...Nb6 8.Bb3 e4 9.Nh4 Bg4.

7.Nh4
and according to Williams White is better; that is questionable after Bg4.

B) 4...Nc6 5.exf5
-5.Be2 Nf6 6.o-o Be7 7.Re1 o-o 8.Bf1 Appstrom-Biemann,1992, Qe8 9.d4 Nxe4 10.Bc4+ Kh8
11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.Rxe4 Bf5 with the initiative.

5...Bxf5 6.d4
-6.Be2 Be7 7.Be3 Nf6 8.o-o (8.a3 o-o 9.o-o d5) o-o 9.d4 a6 or Nxd4 =.

6...Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4 c6!
-8...Nf6 9.Bc4 is irritating, Carlsen-Dolmatov,2004.

9.Bf4
-As 9.Bc4 d5 is fine for Black and 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 c6 transposes to Romanisjin-
Malanjuk, 1987, this is the only try.

9...Qf6
-9...Bxc2 10.Kd2 Bg6 (Bf5 seems even better) 11.Re1+ Kd7 12.g3 Seel-Horstmann,2003, Nf6
13.Bh3+ Kc7 looks like a good fight.

10.Qd2
Breutigam-Dirr,2004. Now 10...o-o-o is unclear.

C) Black should definitely not try 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nf6? as 3.e4 is an improved version of the
Lisitsyn Gambit.
I also must admit that I do not like 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 e6 3.e4 too much. So if Black wants to avoid
the Lisitsyn Gambit proper, 1...e6 might not be the right way.

[code]A) 4...Nf6 5.exf5 Bxf5 6.d4 Nbd7!? 
B) 3...Nf6 and 4...e6 and only after castling e6-e5.  MNb[/code]

What are the beginning moves in variation A)?  In the variation given by Losetowin Black has already played ...Nc6.

I'd assumed the second variation was bad for Black because of the continuation 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 Nf6 4.exf5 Bxf5 5.d4 and Black can't get in ...e5 smoothly.  But I'd be willing to listen if anybody thinks Black is OK in that position.

I have a really hard time believing 2.d3 is a serious threat to 1...f5 versus 1.Nf3.  I'm sure the Philidor-Countergambit is unsound, but with an extra tempo it should be playable.  I have a feeling you might be right about 4...Nc6 being incorrect due to White being able to play d5 at some point with tempo.  I think possibly 4...Nf6 is better.  There is a NIC article on this that I don't have access to.  Can anyone tell us about alternatives to 4...Nc6 or improvements for Black in this line?