The SWA gives NO theoretical advantages ... I get that... but it yields practical advantages a plenty!


Being into chess Chess Anachronism (i.e. Chess before WWII)

I've come to realize people underestimate a lot of the "Why" certain openings were played by Masters of bygone eras.  I built two repertoires that complement each other, basing them on popular opening moves of games pre-WWII and WWI.  (Yes I tweaked them with a modern engine  *more on that below*) 

Repertoire A)  1.d4  2. e3 and 3.Bd3 
Repertoire B)   1.d4  2. Nf3 and 3. e3

Repertoire A) does indeed focus on the SWA... (A great dearth of knowledge on the SWA is Soltis' work ) 

ON... 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd6 Nc6!? threatening 4...e5 (in my Repertoire.)  4.f4!?  and if 4... Nb4 5. Nbd2 NxB 6. pxN (solidifying the center, making ready for a central pawn push, or playing on the flanks... those are pretty easy plans to implement, I've won many a games working from this position.... ) 

Modern engines give it a 1/2 pawn advantage to black.. in other words "Equal" with the best of play by a 3200 elo computer... (I'll take an equal position with clear plans to attempt to implement any day over theocratical what if's)   

1.d4 d5 2.e3 c5  3.c3 Nc6 4.dxc5!? walks right into a Reverse Noteboom!  (I recommend anyone into the SWA seriously to invest into this line.) 

If the reverse Noteboom is not your thing 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5.f4  On  5... Bg4 6.Nf3 Ne4 7.0-0 e6 8.Qe1  Again about a half a pawn advantage with best play by a 3200 engine.m  Last time I checked I don't play 3200 elo opponent's!    

on ...3...g6   * I see this the most* (shutting down the Bishop at d3)  That's a double edge sword if White knows what they are doing. For after something like   4.f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6. c3 b6 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.Qe2   No one tells Black they have shut in their bishop at g7 as well.   Again less than a half pawn advantage for black in a position(s) where I understand the minutia of the queenside based on Black's weakness a3-f8 diagonal. 

Other than being into Chess history why play this?  Well for one.. IMO  it defeats any and all prep by my opponent's  Will I, or won't I play a Reverse Noteboom?   or...  How much time will my opponent spend adjusting to my attacks using the a3-f8 diagonal if the played g6 and Bg7.. 

and the Marshal Variation i.e. 

1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 Bg4 4.Ne2... leads to exciting sharp play.  Frank Marshall played it 3 times winning all three.. Again book up on these position,  be creative and one has a serious "Sneaky" and "practical"  repertoire 


 

.

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.