Well, I will look at those ...Nc6 lines in time, but for now I am confused by MNb's comment that after 8.b3 Qh5 9.Re1 Ne4 is good.

I like the ...Ne4 move a lot in my early experiences with this variation, but NCO gives 9...Qg6 as it's main move rather than 9...Ne4 (not that it really evaluates them differently) - MNb, what is strategically (or otherwise) amiss with 9...Qg6, please?  Or is it simply a case of personal preference?

Thanks Foghorn, you're right - when I looked at the move lists for the games I overlooked the transpositional lines (as in Gallagher-Williams) and wasn't thinking about ...Ne4 out of the context of 7Nc3, although of course it seems to be a key move in many lines.  I'd better get some experience in this variation.  It was TalJechin who pointed out to me that the moves ...Ne5 and ...a5 often end up transposing, something I'd missed -  so it's time for me to concentrate on playing some more games/learning some lines!

Actually, McDonald has a section entitled "Black Plays a Quick ...Ne4 Versus Everything."  In that section he gives two games, Tregubov-Bauer, 2004, with 7...Ne4, and Gallagher-Williams, 2001, with 7...a5 and 8...Ne4.  In the next section, "White Plays an Early b2-b4", he gives Dumitrache-Williams, 2003, also with 7...Ne4.

I don't play the Dutch anymore, but considering how incredibly successful Simon Williams has been with it in OTB play, including a nice recent win over a 2600+ GM, I would be inclined to pay close attention to anything he writes on the subject.

Simon has gone from 2300+ to almost 2500 in a matter of 4 years primarily because of his Clasical Dutch. I think he has all the GM norms now, but just needs to hit the 2500 mark to be ratified the title.

As a former Leningrad and Stonewall Dutch player, I can confidently say that were I to take up the Dutch again, it would have to be the Classical variation.

The Classical definetly gets my seal of approval.

Top  

While waiting for MNb, I could offer my 2 cents: Ooops, too late!

The main line of 7...a5 and 7...Ne4 usually transposes early on, the first offers some more dynamic options and the latter reduces white's options a bit. All three books seem to like ...Ne4! btw. 

Personally, I think the Leningrad is much more logical and easy to play, while my experiments with the Iljin have been both wine and water. In blitz I think I have a plus score but usually mostly because I'm good at taking my tactical chances in messy and bad positions...

Among other things McDonald emphasis that in the classical black should always be open to a transposition to an improved Stonewall. 
While Williams' main rule is that black is OK if he can get in e7-e5. 
Pinski concentrates imo on commenting whole games which makes it hard to get an overview...

So my advice would be to get the McDonald book first, as that would still leave you open to the Leningrad and Stonewall formations, if his commentaries should light a candle for y'a!

Anyway, as you've probably noticed, I'm biased in favour of the Leningrad as I've been playing it for decades by now. Still, after a couple of years trying to master the Iljin I still feel a bit uncomfortable around moves 7-12, as I'm constantly wanting to play Nb8-c6/d7/a6 even though I know Qe8 or Bf6 or a5 etc *should* be played... But if this syndrome doesn't seem familiar, then go straight to Williams' book.

OK, after a day of playing Dutch games online and looking at a board and a copy of NCO I've decided its time to get more involved and get a good book. So, I already own Aagaard's Stonewall book and haven't really felt like that's the right defence for me, as mentioned earlier, which means I have the Leningrad or the Classical to look at.  I've played around with the Leningrad a few times and can't understand it at all, at least I don't see the attraction for Black.  It doesn't seem to be right for me, anyway. So the Classical - I've played some games today with the IJ system and in particular 7...Ne4, which I understand is Williams' recommendation (?) in his book.  I'm afraid I don't really like the look of the 7...a5 line (possibly due to a lack of understanding and experience) too much, and haven't tried 7...Qe8 yet.  So I have a question about coverage for those who have any of the recent books on this - is 7...Ne4 covered in McDonald's book, or Pinski's, or is Williams the only one who likes it?  I certainly like this move, but wonder whether it is still viewed as a good option.  Also, thanks to TalJechin for pointing out the value of Neil McDonald's coverage of the Classical as a good basic introduction, but is it worth buying the book for the Classical coverage alone?  I will almost certainly use the 1d4 e6 move order so early sidelines won't concern me - I wonder if Williams and McDonald both provide lots of basic introductory text, and if they overlap?  Well, I may order both, or all three (Pinski too), but would like to see what people think of 7...Ne4 and the coverage it receives.  MNb - do you play this move? Any thoughts?

Many thanks.

But every reader of Williams' book should suspect his recommendations. Just two examples:
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 o-o 6.o-o d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Re1 Qg6 and Williams does not treat 9.Qb3, which can be unpleasant if Black is unprepared.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 o-o 6.d5 and I think that Williams' recommendation Bb4+ is not his best idea because of 7.Bd2. Black should play Qe8 with the idea e5 or Ne4 transposing to the Alekhine Variation.
So even if you buy all three books, of Pinski, Williams and McDonald, there is still a lot of work to do.