I completely agree, that 7.Nc3 Qe8 (a5) 8.b3 (more precise than 7.b3 at once because of Ne4) and 7.b4 (or 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b4) are critical. These imo are the only ways for White to strive for an opening advantage. Of course I have studied them thoroughly. As I intend to practice my ideas for Black in email chess, you must pardon me for not discussing them. But please note, that after 5.d4 it is not a Réti any longer ...
I do not mind about statistics in the IZ - there are some variations, in which White scores about 65% and Black is still OK.

13.Be3 is not a bad move, when Nd4 looks best. But White certainly has not a queenside majority, as Black still has a pawn on e5. As I agree, that White must strive for simplifying, Black will do the opposite. This again is nothing special in the IZ. As Tarrasch once stated: before the endgame the gods have created the middlegame and that is where Black will find his chances.

Williams recommends 1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.o-o Be7 5.d3 o-o 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.e4 e5 followed by the traditional Qd8-e8-h5 manoevre, combined with Nd4 evt Bg4. Williams gives some original analysis, but here I must respect copyrights. Again Black can win a tempo with 3...d6 4.o-o e5 etc.
Take a look at English-Salter, IRLch Dublin 2005, to learn how quick White can go astray. Sure White can do better, but at the other hand his moves were quite natural, weren't they? White even played your earlier suggestion Ng5.  I would have played 16...Nd4 btw.
True, this game does not prove much. And it is true, that it needs courage and confidence to play the IZ. To quote Williams: "The Classical Dutch is not an opening for the faint-hearted." 
It still looks like a decent idea to play the IZ against a Réti setup. 

"Personnaly,   I have the hardest time against the Classical Dutch"
Exactly this is lacking in Schiller's book.

Lputjan-Barejev, URSch Kyiv 1986, went rather well for Black: 1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.o-o Be7 5.d3 o-o 6.Nc3 d6 7.e4 e5 8.exf5 Bxf5 9.Nh4 Bg4 10.f3 Bc8 11.f4 Nc6 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.h3 (13.Nf5 Bc5+ 14.Be3 Bxe3+ 15.Nxe3 Be6 =) Nd4 14.Bg5 c6 15.Kh1 Be6 =+.
I do not see, what White has after either 9.Ng5 Nc6 10.f4 Bg4 11.Qe1 Nd4 12.Rf2 h6 or 8.Ng5 Nc6 9.f4 fxe4 10.dxe4 exf4 11.Bxf4 Ne5.
Moreover Black can play e7-e5 in one move, like Kasparov-Ziglio Asiago Ludi University sim session 1991. The Boss was lucky to save the draw. Sure he did not play Ng5, but with an extra tempo for Black this is even less frightening. Now I do not state, that Black has easy equality - such a thing does not exist in the IZ. Black has an equal share of  chances and the better player will win. That is exactly what Black desires.
More dangerous is 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.Nc3. This has been debated in another thread, but it seems necessary to pay attention to this variation again.
For those, who play the French, 1.Nf3 e6 is a possibility, intending 2.d4 f5; 2.c4 f5; 2.g3 f5; 2.d3 d5 or 2.Nc3 d5.

So possibly it is a good idea to play the Dutch against the Réti after all ...

Quote:




I don't know........


I’m not that strong of a chess player so most of my opponents when playing a Dutch   fail to find an adequate plan and get into trouble.  Someone who plays the Reti or the English can use basically the same strategic ideas they use against the KID. ...within reason..... )    So White as a flanker is usually good and prepared  (something they don’t tell you in opening manuals on the Dutch.)  

I looked at my database in reference to lines I play against various Dutch systems and for the most part they mimic my OVB results  

check what your database says..


Personnaly,   I have the hardest time against the Classical Dutch    when black puts pawns at d6 e5 and f5.  Black gets more maneuver room to launch attacks, defend etc.
That line I think is the best line when playing against a flank opening...

  1..f5 is a serious move that once done you are all in. It not like playing d6 and then getting the option of e5, c5 or none of the above etc......  You are all in .....  like it or not..


Takes someone of true grit to play it

 


 

MNb wrote on 03/16/06 at 03:14:06:



Probably it's because it's not a good idea to play any Dutch against a Reti type set up.  I have lost very few   Blitz games, none in standard play against people of my strength.

Ideas with pawns at c4, d3  ...then a prepared e4!  (with the bishop sitting at either b2 or c1, knight at f3 pawn ready to jump  then  f2-f4 , (i.e.  KIA attack etc.....)  it blows the center wide open exposing the black king.

I have people try it....and it may look on paper/with computer analysis = but in pratical play ..OVB    no ..... I'm not even sure you can get an = with computer analysis.....

There is way to many master games where black gets into trouble.  To much heat can with little effort by white get pointed in the direction of the Black king

Index of the book:

1.      Introduction
2.      The hypermodern opening
3.      Overview of the repertoire
4.      Basic concepts
5.      Typical strategies and tactics
6.      Transpositional possibilities
7.      Defensive formations
8.      Illustrative games
9.      Heroes of our repertoire
10.      Self-Test
11.      Where to go from here
12.      Index of games (Alphabetic Index)      

The meat of the book!

These are the Illustrative games analyzed in the book:

New York system (...c6, ...d5, ...e6, ...Af5)
---Feustel-Weidemann, Bundesliga 1989
---Khasdan-Novikov, URSS 1964
---Markowski-Bystrov, Vienna 1995
---Ivkov-Ree, Amsterdam 1994
---Fuderer-Cortlever, Amsterdam 1954

Capablanca system (...c6, ...d5, ...e6, ...Ag4)
---Larsen-Timman, Brussels 1987

Semi-Slav system (...c6, ...d5, ...e6, ...Ac8)
---Timman-Korensky, Sochi 1973
---Réti-Yates, New York 1924

Bled system (...g6, ...c6, ...d5)
---Nikolayevsky-Koutsin, Russia 1995
---Matulovic-Ciric, Yugoslavia 1960

Stonewall system (...c6, ...d5, ...e6, ...f5)
---Matousis-Pjami, Zouben 1993

Tarrasch system (...c5, ...d5, ...e6)
---Komarov-Vunder, St. Petersburg 1998

Tartakower system (...b6, ...c5, ...d5, ...e6)
---Korchnoi-Georgiev, Lugano 1986
---Vaganian-Karpov, Leningrad 1971
---Arnason-Salazar, Moscow 1994

KID system (...g6, ...d6, ...e5)
---Schlosser-Gallagher, Kecskemet 1990
---Smyslov-Gufeld, Moscow 1967
(Réti-Smyslov system)

Old Indian system (...Nf6, ...d6, ...Nbd7)
---Hermann-Schmidt, Germany 1989
(Réti-Smyslov system)

Symmetrical systems (...c5, ...d6, ...b6, ...g6)
---Alexandria-Becx, Biel 1995
(No King side fianchetto..., to avoid exchanges)

Asymmetrical systems (...c5, ...d6, ...e5)
---Korchnoi-Beliavsky, Tilburg 1993
---Dalusung-Romanski, California 1993

Romanishin system (...a6, ...b5, ...c5, ...e6)
---Ivanchuk-Chiburdanidze, Moscow 1997

Leningrad system (...d6, ...f5, ...g6)
---Kreuzer-Jenssen, Germany 1993
---Chabanon-Ribreau, Cannes 1992 (1.Nf3 f5 2.c4 d6 3.e4!?..., Schiller's trademark)

Advance system (...d4)
---Tartakower-Janovsky, New York 1924
---Korchnoi-Seirawan, London 1984
---Schiller-Gurevich, San Francisco 1997
---Vaganian-Speelman, Moscow 1985

Reti accepted (...dxc4)
---Botvinnik-Fine, Nottingham 1936
---Bogoljubow-Johner, Berlin 1926
---Petrosian-Pilnik, Buenos Aires 1954

There are more games in the other book sections but this are where the theoretical explanation resides.

The truth about Schiller is that the quality of his output varies greatly, but when it concerns hypermodern stuff you can trust him, I think.
I used to play the modern Averbakh and I know -from bad experience- a line in this opening where the one good/playable reply for Black was* to be found in Schillers book  o n l y . (* Have not checked Tiger's Modern.)

Everyone should have reservations about buying a Schiller book since he puts out so much garbage.  This book has to be one of his very best though.  I have it and I think it's very well done.  It can also be purchased on-line for about $5 shipped which is an extremely good deal for the amount of useful material it contains.  It's a big 300 page book but it does contain maybe about 30 or 40 pages of 'fluff'.  The example games are very good at illustrating the ideas of the opening.  I think one reason for it's higher quality might be the fact that Schiller had already done a book on the Reti before this.