Right...wouldn't 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f4 3. c3 d5 leave White looking a little silly? What's that pawn doing on c3 in a Stonewall?

In Dvoretsky and Yusupov's excellent book Positional Play they give some analysis of these c3 and Qb3 lines.  They seem to come to the conclusion that it's harmless if Black know's what he's doing; Black has numerous ways to reach an equal position.  See Khenkin - Conquest, 1991 for one.

I think the queen trade was partly influenced by my opponent's grade, and my contempt for the stonewall. I thought, with the queens off, I should be able to at least castle and, while white would have an edge, I might be able to cling on. As soon as I played it though, I realised castling was nearly impossible, and white had a pretty nasty threat with Nc4-b6 which is hard to prevent.

The problem is, after 2...g6, the Stonewall setup would be much less effective and it would provide 4.Qb3 with excellent merit. Now, this isn't the main line against the Leningrad, so I can't believe it to be so critical as to force an inferior Stonewall. However, the idea certainly looks interesting.

Alumbrado, I think I'm getting calmer in my old age - less than half my games have been gambits this year, and I'm even looking at the Exchange Spanish and positional replies to the Petroff... however, I completely agree with Petrosian's view, and in fact have played 1.d4 (despite my hatred of it) when I've known to expect a Dutch.

My OTB results with 1.d4? 4 games, average opponent of approx 1900, and 4/4. One Colle (played due to my 2000+ opponent's hatred of the system, back when I was a lowly 1500), one BDG (against possibly the worst tactician for a 1900 I have ever seen), and - you've probably guessed it, 2/2 against the Dutch. One game with 2.h3, and one with the old mainline. 

8arms, by the Classical, do you mean the setup with ...e6, ...d6 and (sometimes) ...c6? It's a system I've looked at but never thought too highly of. I've got to admit, I know very little about the Dutch's theory and lines, but basically the setup I ain for is h7-g6-f5, pawns on d6 and c6, knights on d7 and f6, and the queen on e8 or (preferably) c7, aiming to get ...e5 in. This is the only setup I have any respect for within the Dutch complex and, if it can be forcibly avoided with this Qb3 idea then 2...g6 is certainly not a good way of going about it.

Craig

Given your enthusiasm for sharp positions, dubious gambits and all things reckless, it is no surpise at all to me that you should succumb to the questionable delights of the Leningrad Dutch.  I am amazed to see you playing 6...Qb6 and 7...Qxb3, though - that can't be the right way to go.

There are plenty of people here who will be able to advise you better than I can, but my understanding is that Black is indeed recommended by Lady Theory to adopt a set-up with ...c6 and ...d5.

In Neil McDonald's recent (very good, imho) Starting Out book on the Dutch (my only real reference other than the relevant volume of Khalifman's OWATK) he recommends prospective Dutch players to read the Stonewall section even if they are planning to play the Classical or Leningrad, as there will always be the opportunity (or necessity!) to transpose to a Stonewall set-up, so it is good to be familiar with the positions that arise.

My interest is mainly from the White side, and while in principle I subscribe to the view, attributed to Petrosian, that "if you think your opponent will play the Dutch, you certainly shiouldn't prevent him", I will concede that in practice I have not necessarily fared as well as this would suggest - although one of my losses was against a certain McDonald, N who outrated me somewhat