(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › Daring Defences to 1. d4 › Dutch › A Dutch Question to Palliser
(Moderators: proustiskeen, Hadron, CraigEvans)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
Normal Topic A Dutch Question to Palliser (Read 6540 times)
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #9 - 08/23/05 at 18:28:42
Post Tools
Quote:
That's a great article in a great book. Is there really so much theory on this Stonewall Dutch line where White has gone Bf4 and e3? Both 0-0 and the g4 approach don't seem too theoretical to me, while both look quite enjoyable/pleasant to play as White even if one doesn't know the theory. There must be more scary lines to face out there, although the Stonewall mustn't be underestimated, but some general understanding can get White a long way. Do also enjoy a game from Hampstead 1998 between Aagaard and Williams where Black is destroyed after g4.


See also 'A Killer Opening Repertoire' by Summerscale. He also recommends a setup with h3 and g4 to dismantle the Stonewall Dutch, albeit without the bishop on f4.

TN Grin
  
The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10780
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #8 - 08/22/05 at 23:34:52
Post Tools
A good reason to prefer ...d6 instead of ...d5. See also Bronstein's comments to his 1950 game against Szabo.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMRichardPalliser
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 305
Location: York
Joined: 03/23/04
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #7 - 08/22/05 at 15:13:31
Post Tools
That's a great article in a great book. Is there really so much theory on this Stonewall Dutch line where White has gone Bf4 and e3? Both 0-0 and the g4 approach don't seem too theoretical to me, while both look quite enjoyable/pleasant to play as White even if one doesn't know the theory. There must be more scary lines to face out there, although the Stonewall mustn't be underestimated, but some general understanding can get White a long way. Do also enjoy a game from Hampstead 1998 between Aagaard and Williams where Black is destroyed after g4.
  
http://www.everymanchess.com
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #6 - 08/20/05 at 11:12:39
Post Tools
I know I've mentioned this somewhere else, but one of the best articles, or books for that matter, on the Stonewall Dutch is in Positional Play by Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov.  The article, "Modern Treatments of the Dutch Defense" by Igor Khenkin and Vladimir Kramnik is divided into a White response to the Leningrad by Khenkin and a review of the Stonewall by Kramnik.

Kramnik discusses two main ideas for White:  The first is to play a more or less straight-forward version, combatting Black's Bd6 with Bf4 and trading off.  His prognosis for that idea is not too promising for White.  The other main idea, again aiming to trade off dark-squared Bishops, is to play b3 and Ba3.  Although the positions arising from this idea are much more varied, Kramnik contends that Black is fine here too.  

I've tried both ideas and have had more success with an early Bf4, Ne5 and Nd2-f3.  If Black lets me get all this in without trading off, White really has good chances.  Anyway, take a look at the article if you can and let me know if this helps.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #5 - 08/20/05 at 00:54:40
Post Tools
Great Grin I guess, my parking lot is not bad after all. Thanks a lot Inn2 Cheesy
  
CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #4 - 08/20/05 at 00:28:54
Post Tools
I was thinking of:

Palliser's post here:

http://altmax.com/cgi-local/cpf/YaBB.cgi?board=1d4d5;action=display;num=10804247...

and Ruslan's post here:

http://altmax.com/cgi-local/cpf/YaBB.cgi?board=1d4d5;action=display;num=10482177...

Hope it helps  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #3 - 08/19/05 at 23:57:48
Post Tools
Inn2, I just searched d4 d5 section for "dutch" and couldn't get anything useful. If you remember the thread title, it would be useful. Thanks
  
CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #2 - 08/19/05 at 23:45:08
Post Tools
Yes I guess I got it wrong. I 'll correct the move order. Problems of typing moves Cry
  
CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: A Dutch Question to Palliser
Reply #1 - 08/19/05 at 23:35:51
Post Tools
One is supposed to play Bf4 before e3 in this move order, because swapping dark-squared bishops is supposed to be good for White in the Dutch stonewall.  I seem to recall White can delay castling (Bf4/e3/Qc2/Bd3) and aim to play g4 here too (if black plays Ne4), but simply a quick 0-0 should also be good for White. Theoretically, it seems everybody asseses White has += in this pawn structure if White can develop the dark-squared bishop before e3. I agree with this assessment, but must say there is still alot of chess to be played, and the game still has to be won!

There is an old thread on this line ( i believe both Palliser and Ruslan have posted something in 1. d4 d5 forum), you can search for it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
A Dutch Question to Palliser
08/19/05 at 23:14:59
Post Tools
My repertoire is based on your recommendations for 1.d4 and I like it. Except for Benoni, KID and Modern, I pretty much follow your suggestion. I have a move order issue in Dutch Defense. For 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 is fine. For 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 your recommendation of a set up with Nc3, e3,Bd3, Qc2, Nge2, f3, 0-0 is appealing, 

With this, can we get away from mainline theory after Nf3? I think not. For example 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bf4 c6 6.Bd3 Be7 7.Qc2 0-0 8.0-0. I think we have entered a jungle of theory. Presently I parked myself with 8.g4 system, to cut out on theory, but what I get is highly tactical lines with king in the center. What is your recommendation? Or is there anything else I’m missing?
  
CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge