brabo wrote on 02/13/11 at 10:43:56:


I want to add an update of this line. 2 months ago I was able to play the 10..dxc4 novelty for the first time in an official fiderated game against a French FM but things didn't go completely as expected. 

I blindly followed some analysis from Avrukh and found myself in a very difficult position right after the opening. I can only blame myself for it as I was very critical about Avrukhs lines showing an advantage for white but didn't do the same for the other lines. On top a correspondence game showing a different approach for black was already available so should've rung an alarmbell.

[quote author=2122282E4F0 link=1245104259/223#223 date=1307953476]Thanks again. Of course it is good to be adaptable in one's opinions but it sounds as though you are a bit sceptical about the whole Stonewall! At my own level of play a basic knowledge of the themes plus some tactical awareness will get you through and the Stonewall will be a good opening, but I hope it will not go 'under a cloud'! I thought the stings of 7 Bf4 and 7 b3 had been drawn (and Nh3 can be avoided) so what has changed here, if anything?

I like your lines with 8 ...Qe8 ...[/quote]

Systems based on b3, Bf4,... are maybe leading to equal positions but black must be much more careful to keep the balance.
Also playing for a win with black against a slightly lower rated player is often an impossible task which can much easier be achieved in other sharper openings.

I am an autodidact and learned these disadvantages only after years of experience with the Stonewall. Now I can compensate these disadvantages largely thanks to my experience and my broad homeanalysis. If something is broken, I try to fix it which is in my limited spare time the best choice.

If a student or any interested person today asks me if it is a good idea to take up the stonewall then I say no. Certainly not as a first choice. You better spend the time in a more aggressive opening. I can understand however that the opening could become a nice add on for enlarging your repertoire so you can choose it for a specific game.

[quote author=47444E48290 link=1245104259/221#221 date=1307912934]
Yes, I see that Gofstein's unfortunate knight manoeuvre let him in for attack, but (assuming White can't do better here than 8 Nc3) is 8 ...Nd7 [i]OK[/i] (Bellin gives here 9 Rb1 a5 as mutual chances, Dubinin-Novotelnov), or actually inferior to transposition to 'normal' lines with 8 ...0-0? (I've just noticed that Bellin also gives the delayed castling plan after [u]8 b3[/u] Qf6!? 9 Bb2 Nbd7, without citing a game.) The reason I ask is that I believe you recommended 7 ...Nbd7 after 7 Nc3, so I'm wondering what/how Black should play here after 8 Qc2.

I'm sure it isn't the fault of the book if the 7 Qc2/8 Nc3 stuff is a bit thin, 'cos the line was in its infancy whereas now as I understand it it's perhaps the biggest challenge![/quote]
Neither the book 'Win with the stonewall Dutch', neither Avrukhs book discusses the option of postponing 0-0. I did and have a few remarks on it.

1) After b3 with knight still on b1, you first have to counter Ba3 with Qe7 so I don't really like Bellins plan with Qf6 in such circumstances.
2) 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 c6 5.Nf3 d5 6.0-0 Bd6 7.Nc3 Nbd7 (Probably playable but rather static which means you don't possess a large range of plans to choose from for black) 8.Qc2 Ne4 (Postponing 0-0) 9.Nxe4 (I understand Bellin only discusses Rb1) dxe4 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Ne5 and this position is very similar to the one we discussed here extensively 2 years ago but with some important nuances that blacks king is not committed to any corner yet. In fact in this position I have lines in which black chooses for 0-0, 0-0-0 and even staying in the center with Kf7. In general I've the feeling black is still fighting for equalty.

Qc2/Nc3 has become very popular thanks to Avrukhs book. However it is certainly not the only setup which is giving black a hard time. I am thinking of e.g. systems with b3, Nh3 or Bf4.

[quote author=3E3D3731500 link=1245104259/219#219 date=1307889036]
Then again, what about other options on move [i]seven[/i] -- does the book cover these? Bellin (1990) gives [u]7 ...Ne4[/u], transposing after 8 Nc3 Nd7 to 7 Nc3 Nbd7 (your own suggestion too, I believe) 8 Qc2 Ne4, while after 8 b3 he gives 8 ...Qf6 9 Bb2 Nd7. Is this plan of delaying/omitting ...0-0 still considered OK? (Gofstein-Kupreichik was a fantastic game, even though obviously White played badly.)
[/quote]
Yes the book does cover many other lines. However I must admit that the Nc3/Qc2 chapter is rather thin and you read here much more about it. 
1990 is really a very long time ago in chess, even for a rather slow moving opening as the Dutch stonewall. I know that until 6-7 years ago the Bc8-d7-e8 lines were more or less considered the mainlines against b3 setups but this changed mainly after the game Kiriakov - Ulibin which clearly showed the passiveness of blacks setup. Nowadays most grandmasters play a setup with b6. One big exception is Moskalenko, keeping faith in his Nbd7-a5 systems.

Postponing 0-0 worked well in Gofhstein - Kupreichik but whites early Ne1-Nd3 more or less invited black to play in such mode and can't be compared with normal white setups.

Michael Ayton wrote on 06/10/11 at 13:26:53:

Not much news, I did a nasty discovery in a minorline not mentioned in 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' which I was able to repair only after a week advanced analyzing. 

7.Qc2 0-0 8.Nc3 Bd7 was already discussed in http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1245104259/30 see my reply #34.

brabo wrote on 08/29/09 at 19:37:15:


The Avrukh book made recently a serious push of the Nc3/Qc2 system. Not only did I meet the system many times lately in online blitzgames but also in OTB I met it for the first time last week. As consequence I reviewed my old analysis, found some interesting additions and completed it thanks to a copy of the Avrukh stonewallchapters which I received from a friend. Below you can read a short summary.

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Qc2 (Avrukh gives first 7.Nc3 which I find less precise due to 7...Nbd7 which he doesn't discuss) 0-0 8.Nc3 Qe8 (This was my choice in OTB. It avoids the sometimes highly tactical Ne4 variations and as analysed on this forum, the path to an advantage isn't easy.) 9.Ne5 (9.b3 was my recommendation, 9.Rb1 is the recommendation of Avrukh. I'll return immediately on these 2 mainvariations.) ...Nbd7 10.Bf4 (Has been played already a few times in practice but I don't believe this is the most critical. The novelty 10.f4 looks interesting. Yes whites position becomes rather static but the spaceadvantage will still require from black precise play. 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Nd3 was tested in a recent correspondence game Goncharov - Krzyzanowski of 2009 which white won thanks to a nice minority attack on the queenside. Blacks plan with Nh5 in the game didn't really work so maybe a better setup is with Ne4.) Bxe5 11.dxe5 Ng4 12.b4?! (A minority attack? It isn't completely the same as it is rather 4 against 2 instead of 3 against 2. I think a bit more precise are Qd2 or Nd1 here with decent compensation but likely nothing more.) 12...Ngxe5 (Better than the earlier tried Qh5 as 13.h3 puts the queen rather in an offside position.) 13.cxd5 exd5 and white certainly still has some compensation but has to play very energetically to stay in the game. In the game white wasn't up to the task and slowly lost all compensation.

Mainline A: 
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Qc2 0-0 8.Nc3 Qe8 9.b3 Nbd7 10.Rd1 Ne4 11.Ne1 Qe7 12.Nd3 b6 13.cxd5 Nxc3 (A small but important amelioration which prevents the annoying Nb5.) 14.Qxc3 (14.dxe6 and 14.dxc6 are very tactical but don't seem to lead to any advantage.) 14...cxb5 and now after 15.Bf4 or 15.Qc6 black has Ba6. Probably white still has some microscopic advantage but black is certainly closer to equalty than in the Nb5 variation.

Mainline B:
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Qc2 0-0 8.Nc3 Qe8 (Earlier I already mentioned that the bookrecommendation after Ne4 is insufficient for an advantage. Avrukh responded by giving another way for advantage in an update to be downloaded from the publisherswebsite but also of that suggestion, I was able to largely soften the endevaluation. His treatment of 8...,Qe7 and 8...Nbd7 also leaves room for some improvements which I won't discuss here as I believe white has different ways for some advantage.) 9.Rb1 Nbd7 (Avrukhs treatment of 9...b5 doesn't look impressive to me but as I found a different way for an advantage for white, I won't go into details) 10.b4 dxc4 (Avrukh covers this move as it was mentioned in a sidenote in 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'.) 11.e4 (B5 was my mainline of which Avrukh admits that things aren't clear for finding any white advantage.) 11...fxe4 12.Ng5, b5! (Avrukh only mentions the weak 12...Nb6. I think black has at least 4 different alternatives which look better: b5 [my recommendation], e3, h6 and Nd5. Sloppy analysis? Anyway the position is extremely tactical and thanks to some heavy analysis with some strong engines, I was able to see a bit clarity.) 13.a4!? a6!? 14.Ncxe4 Bb8 15.Ra1 Ra7 16.axb5 cxb5 and with some very imaginative play black has got a promising position. The line is certainly not forced but until now I've the feeling white must be very careful not to fall in an inferior position.

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.b3 Qe7 8.Ne5 0-0 9.Qc2
This position we touched last year in this thread already a bit and I think that today I can add some new interesting twists to the story.

In a recent game I went for 9. ... b6 10.cxd5 cxd5 (One of the recommendations in 'Win with the stonewall Dutch') 11.Nc4 Nc6 12.Nxd6 Qxd6 13.Ba3 Nb4 14.Qd2 a5 15.Nc3 Ba6 16.Rfc1 Rac8N (A logical novelty which doesn't really change the evaluation of the line. Black is solid but still needs to fight for a draw.) 
I don't like to repeat such sad lines without real counterchances so started to look for other lines.

9. ... b6 10.cxd5 exd5 (I was aware about this new idea in 'Win with the stonewall Dutch' because I invented it myself. However without strong preparation this looks very risky and even with preparation it still is.) 11.Nxc6 (The most critical and principled move although I found alternatives in Bb2 and Bf4) Nxc6 12.Qxc6 Bb7 13.Qb5 Ne4! (Better than 13. ... Rac8 which is mentioned in the book 'Win with the stonewall Dutch' because after Bg5 as after Qd3 it isn't clear how black can hold sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 14.f3 Nc5!15.dxc5 Bxc5+ 16.Kh1 Bd4! 17.Ba3 Qe8! 18.Qd3 Bxa1 19.Bxf8 and now Qxf8 as well as Kxf8 are interesting and black is close or has full equalty.

A completely different idea is 9. ... c5 (Rybka and co are heavily supporting this move which was already indicated last year by Ametanoitos. At that time I mainly looked for ideas for white which led to a quick refutation of the move but today I've a bit different view about it after looking more closely to improvements for blacks side.) 10.e3 Nc6 11.Bb2 Ne4 (The plan taking on d4 followed up with Bd7 is insufficient for equalty as was shown earlier in this thread.) 12.a3 Rd8!? and it is unclear to me if white has something.

tafl wrote on 08/08/10 at 19:00:23:

Thanks for the info. It could well be that 14...Nf6 is even better than 14...Bxe2. Either way, it seems White should prefer 13.Nxc6, so I've had a closer look at this move. After 13.Nxc6 Qxe2 14.Ba3! Bd3 15.Qh3 Bxa3 16.Nxa3, things get very complicated with many branching variations (16...Qb2 / Rae8 / Kh8 for starters). White's position is somewhat uncoordinated for the moment, but I haven't found a way for Black to prove compensation yet, and my hunch is he doesn't quite have enough...