My superficial thoughts: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Nxe4! fxe4 9.Nd2 d5 10.f3 exf3 11.Nxf3 Nc6 12.b3 b6! 13.Bb2 Bb7 14.Qd2 Qd6 15.Rf2 Bf6 16.Raf1 and White is slightly more active (Bb7 and Ra8 are not doing much).

10...Nc6!? 11.fxe4 Rxf1+ 12.Qxf1 dxc4!? 13.e3 b5 14.a4 Nb4! 15.Nf3 c6 16.Ne5 Qe8 17.Bd2 a5 might lead to a quick draw: 18.Qe2 Bb7 19.Rf1 Bf6 (Black does not want a knight on f7) 20.Ng4 (White does not want a knight on d3) Be7 21.Ne5.

12...Nxd4 13.exd5 Nc2 14.Rb1 Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Ne3 16.Qf3 and Black has problems with that knight on e3.

On Williams' book: what's in it is pretty good, both the analysis and the explanations. Unfortunately quite a lot is missing.

1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 Nbd7 9.Bb2 Qh5 10.Qc2 g5 =

First of all Williams' line 11.e4 f4 ends in another position in which Black suffers from the eternal problem of Bc8 without Williams offering a solution. For those who own the book (page 44): yes, I can see how Black will transfer the knights to the kingside. If we do a little counting we see four black pieces in the attack (maybe 5, if we also count Be7) and four white pieces in the defence (maybe 5, if we also count Rf1). From the remaining pieces White's are or quickly become the more active (Bb2, Ra1, Qc2). As I am not of the romantic type who thinks that imagination and creativity will decide I see a dark scenario looming: White will succesfully defend and decide the game at the other side of the board.

11.e3 looks good as well. After c6 12.Rad1 e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 I propose 14.Nd4 as the thematic f4 15.exf4 gxf4 16.gxf4 Ng6 gives White the more active pieces again: 17.Rfe1 Nxf4 18.Rxe7 Nxg2 19.Rd3 Nf4 20.Rg3+. Note again Bc8 and Ra8.

Regarding 7...Ne4 I won't say much, I might want to play it myself in the future. Since I bought Williams' book I have thought that 8.Nxe4 must be critical. This has been confirmed the last two years and White has done well. Alas Williams is hardly helpful so we have to do our work for our own.
IM Cox gave 8.Nxe4 fxe4 9.Nd2 (9.Nb1) d5 10.f3 e3 (exf3) 11.Nb1 dxc4 12.Bxe3 Bf6 13.Na3 Nc6 14.Nxc4 Nxd4 15.f4 +=.

Thanks HgMan

Yes, I think Black can still battle through this. Mind you, I'm getting used to playing inferior positions as Black with the Dutch.  I enjoy the wins I get but there as at least as many horrible defeats

I sometimes play ...c6 and wonder if I really ought to be playing ...d5 in this defence.  Perhaps I should examine some Stonewall positions!

slates wrote on 01/03/09 at 00:10:38:


Incidentally, my initial query is MNb's doing, as well.  I've been trying to come up with a few surprises for an upcoming correspondence tournament.  My looking at the Dutch has everything to do with MNb's regular, candid, and excellent posts on the I-Z since I joined this site four years ago...

HgMan wrote on 01/02/09 at 22:56:25:


Hi HgMan

Could I ask why 11...f4 would be preferable to 11...fxe4 ?  

Is Black really relying on an f-pawn advance to conduct his attack?

I nearly always get rid of the e4-pawn when I can whilst playing the Classical Dutch, and especially in the line you are discussing wouldn't it be to Black's benefit to make some exchanges on e4 so as to get his knight from d7 to f6 with gain of tempo?  I personally dislike playing Nbd7, although I find myself playing ...Bd8 in a large number of my games in various scenarios.  I have the Simon Williams book but haven't studied it in much detail; I kind of picked up the defence and ran with it, rarely checking the theory as I find my losses/wins are due to tactics far more often than lack of knowledge in the opening when playing the Dutch.  All the same, I'd like to know why you would allow White to keep his e-pawn in this line - it might stop me being so dogmatic! Thanks.

I wonder also what Mnb (who inspired me to try the Classical Dutch in the first place, incidentally) feels about this move - is it another case of my having been unduly influenced by Mr Williams?  

The big problem with Williams' recommendations is that they do not answer this question: what to do with the Queen's Bishop. It's one thing to play ...Qe8; ...Nbd7; ...e5 or ...g5, but I mistrust attacts if I'm not sure how to involve all my pieces.
Another example is Benjamin-Williams, 2007. Black accepts an undeveloped Queen's Wing; White opens the position; White fails to decide the game on g7 (with Rg5); nice! Black finally can play his bishop to f5; White again fails to decide the game on g7 (with Rd7) and Black still loses.

Regarding your first question, yes, no, maybe, I don't know. After my loss against you (you knew I had to mention it, didn't you?  ) I tried an early ...a5 combined with Simagin's plan of ...b5. I lost badly. What's worse, I not only found where I blundered, but also a promising idea for White. If you are interested, send me a PM.
So lately I decided to follow Keith Hayward's ideas. He knows about these things. My opponent played 8.Bf4 and the usual Dutch experience happened: I found it hard to meet this idea, finally found a way for counterplay and thought I might have a winning attack; my opponent found a narrow escape, I was afraid to get a losing endgame but now things are unclear again even though the queens are exchanged.

Phew, that is quite a lot.
First questions: both. 2.Nc3, 2.Bg5 etc. are quite atypical and why learn stuff, when you can avoid it?

Yes, it is possible to reach the Classical Dutch via 1.d4 d6 and 2...f5. Black limits his own options a bit, eg 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 a5 is not possible anymore; this avoids 7.b4.
Another example 1.d4 d6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 e6 5.Bg2 Be7 6.e4 fxe4 7.Nxe4. With 0-0 played iso d6 7...d5; 7...Nxe4 8.Bxe4 d5 and 7...Nc6 8.Ne2 Bb4+ are possible.
At the other hand the early ...d6 allows Black to answer an early d4-d5 with simply e6-e5.
All this is not terribly relevant compared to the early 6...a5 option though.
One independent option after 1.d4 d6, if I remember correctly, is 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5, but Nbd7 seems to be OK.

The question regarding 1.Nf3 is a tough one. There are one or two threads on this subject in the Flank Openings Sections. I still don't know the answer. It seems to depend on 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.Nc3. Now 1.Nf3 e6 2.d3 f5 3.Nc3 and 4.e4 is quite good for White. But as Black does not mind to play the French after all, 1.Nf3 e6 2.d3 d5 is logical. As White has played an early d2-d3, heading for c2-c4 is less logical. But it is still no Dutch of course.

The last question (vs. 1.e4) is simple: none. In my opinion all variations with an early ...f5 are quite dubious. The only one I might recommend is 3...f5 (Von Jänisch-Schliemann Gambit) against the Ruy Lopez, but its reputation has been damaged as well last few years.
There are a few lines in the French Tarrasch 3...Nf6, that allow Black to setup a raid. They are based on ideas like ...Rxf3 and ...Nxe5. But these are basically exceptions. It is better to regard the question how to reply 1.e4 on its own.