The move ...c6 is not always useful in the IZ, as Black, if possible, wants to have the knight on this square. Eg 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.o-o o-o 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 d6 8.Re1 idea 9.e4.

escac-i-mat: If white plays d4, Nf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 then Bb4 looses its meaning. No check, no pin.

Quote:


I've played the Leningrad for a few years now. I've yet to have a bad position in h4-lines. h4 has to be taken seriously but it shouldn't turn you away from the Leningrad.

I second the comments made by bravehotpad on the Dutch. I, too, like the IZ setups over the Leningrad and not a big fan of pushing the g6 pawn in the Leningrad which entices White to launch the h-pawn forward in attack.

I rarely play the Stonewall, only in certain White setups but for me the g4 gambit lines are a bit annoying if Black plays a early Bf4.

Yes!  For one thing, there's almost no book on it, so you get to make up your own theory.  For another thing, a lot of people don't know how to play against it.  They treat it like a Nimzo, and when they do that, you get a better game.  For a third thing, even in critical variations I think Black's doing okay, see http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1047377203/0#13. ;  

And of course, I greatly enjoy the positions that come up.  They're more whole-board positions than the Dutches I'm used to.

It's not a complete repetoire--White can always avoid it just by delaying c4.  Usually this means developing his king-knight a move earlier.  If he brings it to Nf3, I play a Stonewall, since all the best lines against the Stonewall have the knight going to h3.  If he plays Nh3, I play an I-Z, since all the best lines against the I-Z have the knight going to f3.  All those Dutches put together are still less theory than most d4 repetoires; probably less theory than just the Leningrad.

True.  Faced with the crusher 5. Nd2, I resign immediately and get on with the better things in life.

from my experience the dutch indian is a very effective weapon against weaker players, often i get souped-up Nimzos! but of course as others here have pointed out, the problem is 1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Bb4+ 5. Nd2. 

In short: the Leningrad is more flexible, as Black often can play c7-(c6-)c5, which is not the case in the IZ. At the other hand I like to have the option Qd8-e8-h5 open. Finally the IZ takes much less preparation than the Leningrad. White has only two ways to fight for an advantage against the IZ: the double fianchetto and the b2-b4 system.
In my experience the IZ also offers good chances to win, so it is a matter of taste.

Have a search through the forum for threads on the IZ, or search on MNb's posts - he's a fervent player of the IZ, and has plenty to say about it.  For what it's worth I prefer the IZ to the Leningrad or Stonewall as it's more flexible as well as being easier to play, IMHO.  I have used the IZ in games online for a few months and had lots of fun with it, but I don't play tourney chess OTB so I am maybe not the best person to listen to.....

But a good book to help you decide this might be Neil McDonald's 'Starting Out - The Dutch' which I found to be an excellent read.