There's an interesting series of videos on You Tube entitled "Stonewall Legacy", that cover the Stonewall Attack.  The author is rated about 2000 (better than me), but he seems to know what he's talking about. I'm enjoying them myself and I'm considering taking up the SWA again as I've little time or energy for study these days.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Stonewall+Legacy&search=Search

I know someone who broke 2500 on ICC in bullet and blitz with a very limited repertoire built around the Stonewall as White and Black.  I think he once broke 2000 USCF in otb.

I don't like playing against the Stonewall as White or Black, but at least I feel comfortable enough to play for a win.  The only player I've lost to in a serious game in the last 15 years was rated 150 elo higher than me.  I offered a draw as Black in a completely drawn position but he refused and I fell apart.  The opening didn't win, my opponent's desire to beat me was enough.

[quote author=Michael Ayton link=1195919731/0#14 date=1196176763]
I've been looking in particular at 1 d4 d5 2 e3 Nf6 lines. Yaacov plays a Stonewall here even against ...g6: 3 Bd3 c5 4 c3 g6 5 f4 Bg7 6 Nf3 0-0 7 0-0. 
[/quote]

In this particular move order, I think he might actually prefer 5.dxc5 and play to hold the pawn.

     

Hi Holbox,

You are preaching to the choir. I really was not mocking the book, else I would not be trying to buy it. I agree with your approach.

Holbox wrote on 11/27/07 at 15:40:30:


Chess Advantage in Black and White  aka "The Chess Pacifict's Repertiore" I was trying to buy this book recently, but unfortunately it has gone out of print. Chess books often seem to go out of print so quickly never to be printed again.

Obviously 3.Bd3

Suppose we accept the Yaacov argument, that White is justified in setting up the Stonewall in certain cases -- chiefly if Black plays ...d5 and ...e6 -- but otherwise should choose independent, albeit related, lines (such as Y's anti-KID weapon of e3, Be2 + b3). The question arises, when else, if at all, is the Stonewall recommendable?

I've been looking in particular at 1 d4 d5 2 e3 Nf6 lines. Yaacov plays a Stonewall here even against ...g6: 3 Bd3 c5 4 c3 g6 5 f4 Bg7 6 Nf3 0-0 7 0-0. I'd be interested to know how strong/convincing people think this is compared with the alternatives. These are chiefly (I guess!) 3 Nf3 and:

3 ...e6 4 Bd3, then b3 with a Zukertort

3 ...Bf5 4 c4 c6 5 Nc3 with an e3-Slav

3 ...g6 and now 4 c4 c6 with a Schlechter-Slav, [i]or[/i] 4 Be2!? Bg7 5 0-0 0-0 with a variety of (potentially transpositional) possibilities: 6 c4, 6 Nbd2, 6 b4!?, 6 a4!?.

No doubt there's lots of room for subjectivity in all this. I myself rather like the 4 Be2 stuff (esp. along with space-gaining/prophylactic plans like b4+Bb2), which Kovacevic and others seem to use with effect, and of course at my humble level having a feel for the positions is much more important than theoretical status and is going to score points down at the Club. But I'd be v. interested to hear what people think about the status of lines like these, both per se and compared with the f4/...g6 Stonewall -- and also whether I've left any interesting White possibilities out.

Lots of fun with the word literally in Yes Prime Minister. Jim Hacker prone to using erroneously.