BTW, when I search my database with Black pieces: Nf6, Be7, Rf8, Kg8, pawns b7, c7, d6, e6, f5, g7 and g6, I find sligthly more than 5000 games. The IZ setup is not only playable after 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.o-o o-o 6.c4 d6.
In more than 3300 games White plays a king's fianchetto with Nf3.
Strong rated players, who have tried the IZ with some success: Short, Comas Fabrego, Lobron, Naumkin. The latter has played the IZ on a regular basis until 1998 and has scored a very decent 57% as Black. Still I would not recommend him as an example, as there are too many miracle escapes.

What Inn2 wrote above, could be very true: I am just at the start of my classical Dutch-analysis and practical tries but I also have the feeling that black is not often getting a kingside attack in the classical Dutch (but anything else).

Quote:


Strange that so many are so concerned about pawn e6 as a possible weakness, after all the pawn isn't fixed on e6 - while in the Leningrad you have a backward pawn on e7 and a hole on e6...  

To see the bright side of the e6 pawn, compare with the Sicilian Najdorf/Scheveningen where pawn d6 is known to be a dynamic force - despite that here white can attack it with even more force as Bc1-f4 is available, while Bf1-c4 in the Iljin would take some effort... 

"The Dutch Defense has always been about one thing, dynamic win-or-get-killed games. " this quote from the description of the Minev/Donaldson book says it all. - If you don't see the bright side of dynamic weaknesses - stay with the QGD.

I tried the IZ on and off. In my opinion, Black has no king side attack if White is careful. In many lines it just feels that Mr. Black Pieces (who is a short man) is hastily trying to cobble Mr. White Pieces (who is a tall man) on his head. 

What I'm trying to express, is the idea that the IZ seems to be lacking somewhat in space and central control, to be able to launch successful kingside attacks.

While there can be no doubt that original attackers like Williams (and MnB!) may have success with it, I'm not sure if the IZ is for everyone. The b3 lines are best, I will take White in these lines any day.

I tried now some classical Dutch on ICC (what usually makes not very much sense as people even in standard internet games play anything else but the main variation).

I liked that my kingside looked less vulnerable. 
But I liked more in the Leningrad Dutch that in the 7...Nc6 variation you have in the main variation upon 8.d5 Ne5, 9.Nxe5 a nice pawn front  for a kingside attack, I missed this in the classical.

Thanks for that game, MNb! 

I really liked:

1) the rubber wall treatment similar to a Leningrad - not rushing with either e5 or b5, just sound development and reaction to what white does. This is probably what I do wrong in my Iljin blitz games, going for the pawn strikes slightly prematurely.

2) the white square domination theme, Bd7-e8-g6xBe4 and then simply Rd5! when white plays the strong looking c4-c5?

As the Leningrad is much more popular than the IZ, it would be foolish to state that the latter is superior to the former. Having tried both, but having played the IZ for more than 6 years now, I must say that I find the IZ much easier to understand. In general Black has four plans.
1. Prepare e6-e5 with Qe8, Bd8 and Nc6. This is the first plan to look at, as forcing e6-e5 this way usually gives Black active play.
2. The idea of White's double fianchetto is exactly to prevent this. So Simagin developed the plan a5, Na6, c6, Qe8, Bd7, Rb8 in some move order - and not all moves are always necessary - to prepare b7-b5. The idea is to complicate the position to such extent, that an eventual weakness on e6 is not very important anymore.
3. The exchange manoeuvre Nf6-e4 and Be7-f6. This is especially strong, if White plays b2-b3 with the knight still on b1. But I agree, that even than the resulting positions are a bit dull. After all Black exchanges a piece (Nf6) that he would like to use in a forthcoming attack against the White king.
4. Prepare e6-e5 with c6 and Qc7. It is not so clear to me (yet), when this is good and when not.

Another usual plan is to play d6-d5, but transposing to a Stonewall with a tempo down does not appeal me.
Above plans make clear, why White's most dangerous setups are the Double Fianchetto and the b2-b4 line. The first prevents Black's main plan and it is not clear if he can equalize. The second tries to stifle Black's kingside. Of course I have investigated them thoroughly. But as I intend to apply the IZ in email-chess I will not give concrete lines.

Now on Rousseau's comment. It is true, that Black must avoid passive positions with a backward pawn on e6. The good news is that Black can. I do not understand your comment on Nbd7. This is for several reasons quite often a dubious move: e6 is not protected and Bc8 is out of play. As a result Black will not able to finish his development and with e2-e4 White will establish an enduring advantage. Playing the knight to either a6 (after a5) or c6 will avoid the problem of protecting f5 too.

Sergej: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.o-o o-o 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Ne1 can easily met by e5.

DK: Since the 50ies it is known that 8.Re1 Qg6 (Nc6!?) 9.e4 Nxe4 10.Nxe4 fxe4 11.Bxe4 Nc6 equalizes, as White cannot prevent e6-e5. I refer to three games: Ploger-Heunemann,1989, Rönsch-Just,1973 en Matulovic-Milic,1959.
At the other hand 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 Nc6 9.d5! is better for White, while 8...Bd8 is met by 9.Ba3.
If you count tempi properly, you will notice that g6 and Bg7 takes as many moves (2) as Bf8-e7-d8. So it is simply not true, that Black's preparation of e6-e5 is one tempo more slow in the IZ. It is true, though, that the Leningrad offers Black the extra option c7-(c6)-c5.

Amateur Dragoneer: in the IZ Black does not want to castle queenside, as it is very possible to start a pawnstorm with a5, c6 and b5. Compare Simagin's plan above.

Let me finish with an email game (averagely 6 days a move):

(38) Druon,R - MNb [A99]
EM/H/135, 2004
1.d4 d6 2.c4 f5 3.Pf3 Pf6 4.g3 e6 5.Lg2 Le7 6.0–0 0–0 7.Pc3 De8 8.b3 a5 9.Lb2 Dh5 10.e3 Pa6 11.a3 c6 12.Pe1 Dh6 13.Pd3 Ld7 14.e4 fxe4 15.Pxe4 Pxe4 16.Lxe4 Pc7 17.De2 Le8 18.f4 Lg6 19.Tae1 Lxe4 20.Dxe4 Tae8 21.c5 Tf5 22.b4 axb4 23.axb4 Td5 24.Ta1 Pb5 25.cxd6 Pxd6 26.De2 Pb5 27.De4 Ted8 28.Tae1 Pxd4 29.Pc5 Lxc5 30.bxc5 Pb3 31.Dxe6+ Dxe6 32.Txe6 Pxc5 33.Te7 T8d7 34.Txd7 Txd7 35.La3 Pb3 36.Tf2 Td1+ 37.Kg2 Td2 38.Lb4 Txf2+ 39.Kxf2 c5 40.Lc3 b5 41.Ke3 Kf7 42.Ke4 c4 43.Kd5 Pc1 0–1

Note that White only plays thematical moves and still loses a pawn. Again I am not discuss this variation. But I can assure you, that I am happy, to read Sergej's and Rousseau's statement, that 8.b3 refutes Black's play. The more White players underestimate Black's chances, the better for me.