MNb wrote on 01/30/05 at 20:19:25:


Apart from Nd7, playing 8...Nxd5 9.cxd5 Qb5 is also intresting, actually forcing the exchange of Queens after  10.Qd3 Qxd3 11.exd3 Na6 with an unpromising pawn structure for white.
Still I haven`t found any better move for white than 10.Qd3. Any alternatives for whites tenth move in this variation?

BTW, as a newbie in this forum, I want to say hi to all the fine people here.

Sorry, but I must repeat that I won't analyse the two main lines of the IZ here. The enemy also listens.
If you send me a private message and promise not to publish my answer, I will send it to you.

But keep a hawkeye on e6-e5! Eg Larsen-Olafsson, Reykjavik m(7), 1955,  Bolbochan-Pelikan, Buenos Aires, 1958 and Janjgava-Naumkin, Vilnius 1988.
You might be interested in the games
Smejkal-Lechtynksy, Trinec 1972.
Pantebre Martinez-Kirsch, Olympiade 1978.
Timoscenko-Naumkin, Tasjkent 1987.

Bellin's old books are the best on the CD for me. I haven't seen Macdonald but I'd take Williams over Pinski by far: it's true that Williams is a thematic repertoire book and concentrates on particular plans, but he plays and knows the opening a lot better than Pinski and it shows. He's also miles and miles better on the subvariations (for exaxmple and from memory, so I might be wrong, I don't think Pinski covers 2 Nf3 beyond some absurd game Hoi-someone (Piskov?), which admittedly has an amusing story attached but in which White basically had a bit too much Christmas spirit aboard to judge from his play.

Viking, Pinski briefly mentions the Na6, Rb8, b5 plan in his introduction (quoting Krivoshey-Salai, 1997 and Ribli-Lobron, 1996) (after Lobron's 11...Rb8. Pinski writes: "Black is fully prepared for the b7-b5 advance. After this White will have to choose between cxb5, which gives away control over d5, and allowing ...bxc4, whick opens the b-file for Black's rook."   

I think he mentions this plan in some variation notes as well, and McDonald (Starting out) refers to Pinski mentioning the b5-plan in his comments to Spraggett-Fabrego, 1994: 1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. c4 Be7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. 0-0 d6 7. b3 Qe8 8. Nc3 a5 9. Bb2 Qh5 (McDonald: "Pinski points out that Black had an interesting alternative planin the shape of queenside action, beginning with 9...Na6 10. e3 (or 10. a3 c6, limbering up for b7-b5) 10...Rb8 11. Re1 Qh5 12. e4 Nxe4 13. Nxe4 fxe4 14. Rxe4 b5! with dynamic play.) 

But no major discussion, as far as I can see (admittedly briefly). On the whole I found Williams and McDonald more inspirational than the parts I've read so far in Pinski. But the latter is good if you're looking for a lot of concrete variantions in the IZ. Personally, with work, wife, 3 kids, etc, etc, I think I'll focus on the broad plans 

Finally I got my copy of Williams book
I havent really have had time to investigate it, but was surprised that it doesnt mention the Simagin plan of Na6/Nc7/b5 in the 7..a5 variation....  
Does Pinski cover it or is just the good old works own by MNB?

I have played 7 ...Qe8 8 d5 a5 many time in internet blitz and for some reason many white players continues with the typical plan anfter 8..Na6. They play a3-Rb1- b4, and after axb4! i get good play with my rook on an active a-file!

TJ is correct.
I dont have any problems with a5 in the Leningrad (my personal choice up to now) or KID for that matter.

But the logic behind a5 in the IZ is not clear to me...

I think you refer to the Leningrad. I think a5 serves a similar purpose as in the KI. To avoid b4 and to put the knight on c5.

In many posts above we can read, that in the IZ double fianchetto Black has difficulties forcing e6-e5. That is not entirely true. One of the many possible ideas to meet this critical variation is favoured by specialist Keith Hayward:

Hahn,D - Hayward,K [A99]
corr 9USCCC, 1992
1.d4 f5 2.Pf3 Pf6 3.g3 e6 4.Lg2 Le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Pc3 De8 8.b3 Pc6 9.d5 Pd8 10.Pb5 Pxd5 11.Pxd6 Lxd6 12.cxd5 e5 13.e4 Pf7 14.exf5 Lxf5 15.Ph4 Ld7 16.Le4 g6 17.Dc2 Ph8 18.Lh6 Tf7 19.Pf3 Lf5 20.Tfe1 Dd7 21.Ld3 Te8 22.Pg5 Lxd3 23.Dxd3 Tf5 24.Pe4 Pf7 25.g4 Pxh6 26.gxf5 Dxf5 27.Te3 Tf8 28.h3 Dh5 29.De2 Dh4 30.Tc3 Tf4 31.Pxd6 cxd6 32.Tac1 Pf7 33.Tc8+ Kg7 34.De3 Pg5 35.T1c7+ Kh6 36.Th8 Dh5 37.Kg2 Dd1 38.f3 Dxd5 39.h4 Pf7 40.Tb8 Kh5 41.Tc4 Txc4 42.bxc4 Dxc4 43.Txb7 Dxa2+ 44.Kg3 g5 45.De4 gxh4+ 46.Dxh4+ Kg6 47.De4+ Kg7 48.Df5 a5 49.Dg5+ 1-0

Now I do not claim easy equality for Black - such a thing does not exist in the IZ. At the 12th move though, Black has his ideal centre. It is not hard, to improve Black's play at move 16. This is not an exemplary game, but it strikes me that even with that awful knight on h8 Hayward managed to create counterplay.
For more games with this variation I refer to
http://www.geocities.com/drawyah

In the game Ahlander-Brynell I do not quite see where Black could have played dxc4 followed by e6-e5.
But is't 15...Bg6 (instead of Bh5) better? The pseudo sac Nxd4 did not work before, but after 16.a4 Qe7 17.b5 Nxd4 looks playable; I am not sure abut axb5 18.cxb5 Nxd4 19.Nxd4 e5 20.Qxc7. With the bishop on h5 the pseudo sac does not look completely satisfactory because of Nd4-f5.
I find 21...Qd8 rather passive; what about 21...Qc5!? It seems to be Black's last chance for counterplay.
From the Johnson-Lindberg game I do not understand very much, except the last moves 40.Bh3?? Rxd6 0-1. This indicates that for me the IZ indeed is easier to grasp.
For those who are interested: there is also a game with the Elephant Gambit.

By a strange coincidence, last nights' games in a local IM tournament had both an Iljin and a Leningrad, which turned out to favour the latter this time.

http://www.schackforum.se/Ahlander1.htm

Quote:


This I don't agree with! In my experience, black can get an awful position pretty quickly in either system if one doesn't play the toughest moves early on. If any of them is easier to learn, I'd say it's the Leningrad as the fianchetto is a more common set-up, which means you'll have some use of earlier adventures in the Modern/Grünfeld/ModernBenoni/King's Indian, which most people have dabbled with at one time or another.

I'm not sure what Brynell did wrong against Ahlander - my first reaction was to play for dxc4 and then e6-e5, but I haven't checked if this works concretely. 
If it really is that simple, why would Brynell play Bd7-e8-h5 instead, too drawish perhaps?  ???

Thanks very much for this, AmateurDragoneer! -- it told me everything I wanted to know.

Bjarnason--Goodger was wild stuff! ...

The original topic was to compare the IZ with the Leningrad. Just a few points.
Starting point: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d6 4.Nf3.
I. After 4...g6 5.o-o Bg7 6.c4 o-o 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 Black can play e5 immediately, while 4...e6 5.o-o Be7 6.c4 o-o 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 it is harder to realize e6-e5.
II After 4...g6 5.o-o Bg7 6.c4 o-o it does not seem a good idea to play 7.b4, while this is dangerous against the IZ.
III After 4...g6 5.o-o Bg7 6.b3 o-o 7.Bb2 Black has not done too well, neither after e5, nor after Nc6, nor after Qe8; the latter scores relatively best with 43% for Black. After 4...e6 5.o-o Be7 6.b3 o-o 7.Bb2 Black can play for an advantage both with Nc6 and Qe8. Also Ne4 and a5 are possible.
IV I do not know the current status of the Karlsbad Variation. Against the IZ the Nh3 variations are not particularly good. Black can get easy equality with e6-e5 at once, permitting the exchange of the queens, while 7...Qe8 is the ambitious reply.
V playing Ne4 in the Leningrad does not seem to be a good idea in general; it is an important resource in the IZ.
VI The queens fianchetto hardly ever occurs in the Leningrad, while the setup b6, e6, Bb7, Be7 is rather popular, both with the d-pawn on d7 and on d6. This formation comes especially into consideration if White plays some quiet, unusual line.
VII In the Leningrad Black often plays c7-c5 or c7-c6-c5 with a White pawn on d5. In the IZ c7-c5 is usually not a good move.
VII In the Leningrad the pawn formation Wh c4, e4 has done considerably worse than in the IZ, with a White king's fianchetto. The reason might be, that in the Leningrad Black does not have the follow up Qe8-h5.
All in all I do not share the opinion, that the Leningrad is more flexible than the IZ. Due to the double fianchetto though, the IZ is more risky.

H'm ... interesting. But I'd still like to know what you guys / Kindermann think is wrong with 7 ...Qe8 8 d5 Na6 9 Rb1 (best??) Nc5, and what you think might be Black's best set-up(s) after 8 d5 a5 9 Rb1 Na6 10 a3 ...

I still wonder, how Black must meet 7...Qe8 8.Nd5!? in the Leningrad. This idea is obviously not very strong in my beloved IZ...

Quote:


A revised edition of KInderrmann's Leningrad book is due out any time published by Olms - in English!

I'm a new boy where the wonders of the Leningrad are concerned and would like to ask what set-ups people would recommend after 7 ...Qe8 8 d5. In particular: is there anything wrong with 8 ...Na6 9 Rb1 Nc5 apart from a possible lack of strategic richness (as stated in another thread) compared with 8 ...a5 lines? And what about 8 ...a5 9 Rb1 Na6 10 a3? I've noticed four lines being played recently:

I  10 ...Bd7 11 b4 ab 12 ab c5 13 dc bc 14 b5 cb 15 cb Nc5

II 10 ...e5 11 de Be6 (OR 11 ...Nc5 12 Nd4 Ne6 13 Ne6 Qe6 14 Nd5 Qf7) 12 Nd4 c6 13 Na4 Rd8 14 Bd2 Bc4 15 Ba5 Rb8

III 10 ...Nc5 11 Nb5 Qd7!? 12 b4 ab 13 ab Nce4 14 Nfd4 c6

IV  10 ...h6 11 b4 (11 h4!?) ab 12 ab g5 13 Nd4 Kh8


Which of these are best for Black? Thanks for your help!

Quote:


Williams devotes a chapter to 7 ... Ne4 in his book, Play the Classical Dutch.  It's a shortish chapter based on the fact that it has been rarely played, but he claims that 7 ... Ne4 (to which he adds a !) "solves all of Black's problems."  The added advantage here is that Black is going to want to play this move anyway.  So why not immediately?

If White plays 7.b3 in the Iljin-Ghenevsky Dutch I have 217 games of players rated>2000 Elo and this results in 65 % (!) White vs. 35 % Black. If somebody asks me what opening scores these numbers I would have answered with some Gambit.

Well, as it may take for me some further weeks to reach 2600+ (2500+ must be a matter of a few days) I am satisfied with stating results in the Leningrad Dutch with an average of only 2330 Elo (despite the risk of including games of players who even dont know the rules yet ) and there it is a fact, that the Leningrad Dutch scores 53 % White vs. 47 % Black.

And that the Iljin-Ghenevsky scores by far worse and that results in some variations remind scores seen only in Gambits, is a fact too.

<The Leningrad Dutch scores in the main variation with 7...Qe8 the result of 53 % White vs. 47 % Black.>
With both players having ELO 2500+ the score is 56% vs 44% and both with ELO 2600+ even 58% vs 42%. That is what I meant. Not that I want to discourage anyone of playing this defence.
Still, after 7...Qe8 8.Nd5 White has 57%. So from a statistical point of view The Leningrad with 7...Qe8 is not that much better.

"chess history treats this as the birth hour of the Qe8-Leningrad." This confirms once again, that chess history, especially history of opening theory, is highly unreliable. Fact is, that Malanjuk's "novelty" was already a quarter of a century old. This confirms another truth: it is useful, to study old games and look if the ideas in those games still are useful.

As 7...Qe8 in the IZ is hardly a novelty, I assume that you mean the Leningrad? Then you might find it interesting, that Pelikan played it two times back in 1959.
A quick look in my database learns me, that 7...Qe8 on 2600+ level scores much worse than on 2400- level. Sounds almost like the IZ.
There are quite a few respectable players, btw, who think that reaching equality in the Leningrad is not so easy, if White knows what he is doing .....

I've had a few games with a "Leningrad Stonewall" type setup and it actually offers interesting dynamic possibilities. The activation of the Bc8 is no more a problem in such a setup than it is in the Classical or regular Stonewall setups.

Wow!  With so little material out there, this could be a rather good line to prepare...

I have been meaning to ask the same question for awhile.  With pawns on c6,d5,e6,f5, & g6, how does Black fair?  Is this a kind of Stonewall-Leningrad hybrid?  Where might I find information on this kind of system/line?

Stefan Kindermann's book is absolutely great, 1A! Both on the main lines and also on the most important sidelines like 4.c3 + 5.Qb3, 2.Nc3, 2.Bg5, the Staunton Gambit. As far as I remember the only sideline he dont covers is 1.d4/2.c4/3.Bg5 (he has only 3.Nc3). Valerie Beim (who plays chess in beautiful Austria I think he even got the Austrian citizenship just a few years ago) may be very fine if you are rated above 2200.

Dutch-Leningrad:Which books do you prefer:
Kindermann or Beim or maybe something else?

In answer to all those, who think that preventing e6-e5 is an easy job, I have collected a few examples.

Carlsen,F - Pedersen,E [A99]
Roskilde, 1958
1.Pf3 e6 2.g3 f5 3.Lg2 Pf6 4.0-0 Le7 5.d4 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Pc3 De8 8.b3 a5 9.e3 Pa6 10.Lb2 c6 11.a3 Ld8 12.Pe1 e5 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Dc2 Lc7 15.Pd3 e4 16.Pf4 Pg4 17.Pce2 Pe5 18.h4 De7 19.Kh2 Ld7 20.Pd4 Pc5 21.Tfd1 Pcd3 22.Pxd3 Pxd3 23.Kg1 Le8 24.Lc3 Lh5 25.Pe2 h6 26.Td2 Tad8 27.Ld4 Td7 28.c5 Tfd8 29.b4 axb4 30.axb4 Pxb4 31.Db3+ Pd5 32.Tda2 Lf7 33.Db2 Lh5 34.Kf1 Df7 35.Ta8 Lb8 36.Ke1 Pc7 37.T8a4 Pb5 38.Lf1 Kh7 39.Pf4 Lxf4 40.gxf4 Pxd4 41.Txd4 Txd4 42.exd4 Df6 43.Ta4 Dxh4 44.Dd2 e3 0-1

Klemm,W - Kuehn
corr DDR-Cup, 1978
1.c4 f5 2.Pf3 Pf6 3.g3 d6 4.d4 e6 5.Pc3 Le7 6.Lg2 0-0 7.0-0 De8 8.b3 a5 9.Lb2 Pa6 10.a3 c6 11.Te1 Dg6 12.e4 Pxe4 13.Pxe4 fxe4 14.Txe4 e5 15.De2 Lf5 16.Te3 e4 17.Pd2 d5 18.f3 Lg5 19.Tc3 Tae8 20.fxe4 dxe4 21.Te1 Lg4 22.Dxg4 Le3+ 23.Tcxe3 Dxg4 24.Lxe4 Pc7 25.d5 cxd5 26.cxd5 Dd7 27.Pc4 Df7 28.d6 Txe4 ½-½

Pantebre Martinez,B (2200) - Kirsch,G (2200) [A99]
Olympiade M Buenos Aires (9), 1978
1.d4 e6 2.Pf3 f5 3.g3 Pf6 4.Lg2 d6 5.c4 Le7 6.Pc3 0-0 7.0-0 a5 8.b3 De8 9.e3 c6 10.Lb2 Pa6 11.Dd2 Tb8 12.Tac1 b5 13.cxb5 cxb5 14.Tfe1 Dh5 15.De2 Pc7 16.Pd2 Df7 17.f4 La6 18.Dd1 b4 19.Pce4 Pfd5 20.Pf2 Pb5 21.Pc4 Pbc3 22.Lxc3 Pxc3 23.Dd2 Lxc4 24.bxc4 Tbc8 25.Lf1 Dh5 26.e4 Lf6 27.exf5 exf5 28.Te6 g5 29.Ph3 Pe4 30.Dd1 Df7 31.d5 Da7+ 32.Kg2 g4 33.Txe4 gxh3+ 34.Kxh3 fxe4 35.Dg4+ Kh8 0-1

Volovich,A - Zaitsev,A [A96]
CCCP, 1962
1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Pf6 4.Lg2 Le7 5.Pf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.b3 De8 8.Lb2 Pc6 9.Pc3 Ld7 10.d5 Pd8 11.dxe6 Pxe6 12.e3 Kh8 13.Tc1 a5 14.a3 Pc5 15.Pd4 Pg4 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 Pe4 18.Pd5 Lg5 19.De2 Ta2 20.Ta1 Txa1 21.Lxa1 c6 22.Pf4 Pe5 23.Pf3 Lf6 24.Pxe5 dxe5 25.Pd3 De7 26.Td1 Ta8 27.Dc2 Le8 28.Lb2 Lh5 29.Ta1 Td8 30.c5 h6 31.f3 Pg5 32.Pe1 e4 33.f4 Pf3+ 34.Lxf3 Lxb2 35.Dxb2 exf3 36.Kf2 De4 37.Tc1 Dd5 38.Tc2 Dd1 39.Dc3 Lg4 40.Tb2 Da1 41.Dc2 Td1 42.Ta2 Txe1 43.Txa1 Txa1 44.Dd2 Th1 45.Dd8+ Kh7 46.Dh4 Ta1 47.h3 Ta2+ 48.Kf1 Th2 49.hxg4 Txh4 50.gxh4 fxg4 51.f5 g6 52.f6 Kg8 53.e4 Kf7 54.e5 g3 55.Kg1 g5 56.h5 g4 0-1

Nedeljkovic,S - Maric,R [A96]
JUG, 1956
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Pf3 Pf6 4.g3 Le7 5.Lg2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.b3 De8 8.Lb2 a5 9.Pc3 Dh5 10.e3 Pa6 11.Pe1 Dh6 12.Pd3 c6 13.De2 Pb4 14.Pxb4 axb4 15.Pa4 e5 16.c5 Le6 17.Pb6 Tad8 18.Pc4 e4 19.cxd6 Lxd6 20.Pxd6 Txd6 21.De1 Pd5 22.a3 Lf7 23.axb4 b5 24.Ta7 Lh5 25.Dd2 Lf3 26.Tfa1 Dh5 27.Ta8 Lxg2 28.Kxg2 Tdf6 29.Txf8+ Txf8 30.Ta6 f4 31.exf4 Df3+ 32.Kg1 Txf4 33.Txc6 e3 0-1

Taimanov,M - Kortsjnoj,V [A98]
CCCPch sf Leningrad, 1950
1.d4 e6 2.g3 f5 3.Lg2 Pf6 4.Pf3 Le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Pc3 De8 8.Dc2 Dh5 9.b3 Pc6 10.Lb2 Ld7 11.a3 Tae8 12.d5 Pd8 13.Pd4 e5 14.Pdb5 Pf7 15.Pxc7 Tc8 16.Pe6 Lxe6 17.dxe6 Pg5 18.Pd5 Pxd5 19.Lxd5 f4 20.f3 fxg3 21.hxg3 Dh3 22.Kf2 Pxf3 23.Ke3 Pd4 24.Dd1 Dxg3+ 25.Tf3 Pxf3 26.exf3 b5 27.Dh1 bxc4 28.bxc4 Tb8 29.Lc3 Tb3 30.Kd3 Df2 31.De1 e4+ 32.Lxe4 Txf3+ 33.Lxf3 Dxf3+ 34.Kc2 Txc3+ 35.Kb2 Tb3+ 0-1

Gibbs - Hayward,K
corr USA-ENG, 1986
1.d4 f5 2.Pf3 Pf6 3.g3 e6 4.Lg2 Le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Pc3 De8 8.b3 Pc6 9.d5 Pd8 10.Pb5 Pxd5 11.Pxd6 Lxd6 12.cxd5 e5 13.Lb2 f4 14.Pd2 Pf7 15.Pe4 De7 16.Tc1 Pg5 17.Dd2 Pxe4 18.Lxe4 Lh3 19.Tfd1 Tf6 20.Dd3 Taf8 21.gxf4 Txf4 22.Lxh7+ Kh8 23.Dxh3 Th4 24.Dg2 Kxh7 25.Tc3 Lc5 26.Tf3 Th5 27.Lc1 Txf3 28.Dxf3 g6 29.Le3 Ld6 30.h3 e4 31.Dg4 De5 32.Dd7+ Kg8 33.Dc8+ Kf7 34.Dd7+ Kf8 35.Dc8+ Kf7 36.Dd7+ ½-½

Delemarre,J (2360) - Bricard,E (2475) [A96]
Sonnevanck Wijk aan Zee (6), 1996
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Pf3 Pf6 4.g3 Le7 5.Lg2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.b3 a5 8.Lb2 c6 9.Pc3 Ld7 10.Dc2 Pa6 11.e4 Pb4 12.De2 Pxe4 13.Pxe4 fxe4 14.Dxe4 e5 15.De2 Lf5 16.Pe1 exd4 17.Lxd4 Lf6 18.Td1 ½-½
Here Black might consider the never played 9...Qc7 too, though 10.Qc2 e5? (Na6 first) loses.

Müller,H - Vukovic,S [A96]
San Benedetto (11), 1957
1.Pf3 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Pf6 4.Lg2 Le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 d6 7.d4 a5 8.Pc3 Pa6 9.Lb2 c6 10.Te1 Pe4 11.e3 Ld7 12.Pxe4 fxe4 13.Pd2 d5 14.f3 exf3 15.Pxf3 b5 16.c5 ½-½

Of course I could have collected games too, in which Black lost almost chanceless. But I just wanted to make something clear: Williams writes that after 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 a5 "White can get an advantage without too much risk after 9.Bb2." This is very disputable. In case you agree with this quotation: Williams does not even mention Hayward's 8...Nc6, but advocates 8...Nbd7 and 8...Ne4. With so many options Black should prepare the Double Fianchetto, not fear it.

"But the Leningrad is usually by far more playable then the IZ."
This is an opinion, disguised as a fact. Maybe Sergej should take his own advice and go a little deeper in the theory of the IZ. Or maybe not, as stated before I like it when White players underestimate my pet defence.

Fair enough. But still I have four remarks:
1. playing 8...a5, 9...Na6 does not mean, that Black abandons other ideas; when the opportunity is there, e6-e5 or Nf6-e4 still should be played. After 8.b3 a5 9.Re1 for instance, Ne4 is much stronger than 8.Re1 Ne4.
2. Black has several options after 8.b3. As TalJechin indicated, it is not clear if immediately 8...a5 is necessary.  It is not clear either, if Black should leave the queen on e8 or play it to h5 and h6. Keith Hayward on his website advocates an early Nc6, not being afraid of d4-d5. All I can say is, that there is much room for investigation and fresh ideas - for both sides.
3. You already mentioned 7.Nc3 c6 with the idea Qc7 and e5. Because of 8.b4 you might also consider 7.Nc3 a5 8.b3 c6 9.Bb2 (but 9.Ba3 Na6 idea Nb4) Qc7 or Na6 and Qc7. Again my statement is, that Black must develop his own ideas.
4. in several main lines of the Leningrad Black leaves the pawn on e7 and plays c7-(c6)-c5 instead, initiating counterplay .... on the queenside.

As I have stated before, I had initially my doubts on the IZ too. What convinced me, is the fact that Black has a wide choice against the Double Fianchetto. Compare that game Druon-MNb: I never played b7-b5 nor e6-e5, still it was a good fighting game.

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&#8211;0 0&#8211;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&#8211;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.

Absolutely correct, Sergej!
8.b3 is definitely the refutation of the classical Dutch.

The only plan that would make the classical Dutch interesting, has got impossible with 8.b3, black must suffer without e5.
There has been some tries to go around this, Simagin with queenside play, another idea was Ne4, but all in all the black position isnt anymore really playable. If you want to know why there are 15.000 Leningrads in your database but only 1500 classical Dutch, have a look at 8.b3.

Quote:


Williams gives the main line as 12.Qe2 Bf6 13.Bd2 e5 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.Bc3 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Bd7!? 18.Re7 Rae8 19.Bxb7 c6 Here, Williams concludes that black has almost equal chances despite the pawn less, and should be able to hold the draw.

In the variation 7.Nc3 Qe8, the move 8.Re1 seems to be really the most uncomfortable move for black when aiming for a quick e7-e5.
8.b3+9.Bb2 allows black nearly always e7-e5.
8.Qc2 is in this meaning not so strong because of 8...Qh5, 9.e4 e5!.

But what to do against 8.Re1 ?

rousseau is right in not trusting the I.Zhenevsky Dutch.

Lets take 7.Nc3 Qe8 (at amateur level more seen then 7...a5) 8.Ne1, a very common move obviously aiming at a quick e2-e4.
Black has really no sufficient answer:

1) 8... Qg6, 9.e4 fxe4, 10.Nxe4 Nxe4, 11.Rxe4 Nc6 and I would prefer the White pieces, the black pawn center looks not very encouraging

2) 8... Ne4 and what now if White dont plays 9.Qc2 but 9.Nxe4, fxe4, 10.Nd2 d5? Again I would prefer the White pieces because of the black pawn weaknesses.

Because in the classical Dutch, lets say for example after 7.Nc3 Qe8,
black has the problem to first play Nbd7 and then secondly get the Be7 out of the way to break through while White is already prepared for e4. 
And another handicap: in the Leningrad you need not care about f5 if breaking through with e5 because of the g6-pawn. But in the classical Duch you need at first to overprotect the f5.

All this costs tempi And as the main question in the Dutch is who first breaks through in the center, the Leningrad is better because you save 1 or 2 tempi.

Quote:


Thats the point. For the same reason I stopped playing the Leningrad. From the point of current theory the Leningrad is fine, a lot of GM & IM play it. But a GM or IM can afford this double-edged position. I mean, f5 already is a serious weakening of your king. But with an additional g6 you make your kingside really very, very vulnerable. The smallest mistake is your end!
The Leningrad is the most double-edged position I know. You pay a high price for your counterplay, for my personal opinion a too high one.

I would say, if you are up to date with the last theory, you can go for the Leningrad. But if you want to play an opening with an economic amount of theory and a more solid position, where you first keep the safety of your king and only then start your attack, play the IZ.

The Dutch is my pet opening. 
But more and more during the last months I considered changing the Leningrad Dutch that I played the last 2 years to the classical Dutch (or Iljin-Zhenevksy).

The reason is that I lose too many games because of weaking my king side with g6. Especially if 
White plays a Qb3-setup I often lost due to my kingside-weakness when the simple Ng5 is the start of complications that often end bad for me. To me it seems that Black must be in the Leningrad more precise then for example in the Kalashnikov that is considered risky too.

Would like to hear opinions of other "Dutchies". I know of course that the classical Dutch is rare (Megabase: 1700 classical, 15.000 Leningrad!) and nearly no GM plays it but this is no reason for me not trying it.

Any Dutchies outside there that have some experience with both sides of the coin? Why you decided for either the Leningrad or the classical? And to the Leningrad players: dont you often pay the bill for the weakness of the kingside?