parisestmagique wrote on 03/18/10 at 08:44:10:

Personally I don’t fancy 2...Nf6 and 3...c6 just seems artificial. I am sure you can tell us what happens after 5...Qa5 6.Bd2 and what the depth of Black’s counter play is here.
As for 1.d4 f5 2.d5, apparently this was examined by S.Z Alapin at the turn of the century. He suggested in some analysis published in Schachfreund, the line…e6! 3.dxe6 d5 4.Nh3 (4.e4?! fxe4 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qe5 Nf6 7.Bg5 Bg7 8.Nc3 c6 9.0–0–0 Qe7) 4...Bxe6 5.Nf4 Bf7 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 with appears to supply Black with a nice bind of the e4 square but only a slight advantage. 
HTH

I faced the Clarenden Court only once.  I played the critical line but lost anyway.  I still don't have any faith in it, but it is a dangerous weapon.  

But, speaking of faith, I have none at all that 2.d5 is correct.  2...c5 is clever enough, but I see nothing wrong, or even challenging about 2....Nf6 3.g3 c6 4.c4 cd5 5.cd5.  Perhaps 3.Nc3 g6, but again, I don't see any attempt at an advantage for White compared to other lines.

I think white has gone way too far to avoid the Stonewall.  If White wishes to avoid the Stonewall, may I suggest 2.Bg5?

I think White gives Black the opportunity to apply good pressure to the d5 pawn, and the long diagonal is more exposed, so Black has more power in the Leningrad options than normal.  I guess if your opponent only plays the Stonewall, then fine - but I play various Dutch move orders, depending on what my opponent plays.  Last night I played a Stonewall, but often I honestly either play the queenside fianchetto or the Bb4 Dutch.

Should that be 2.d5 or 2.f4?

Hello, what do you think of this anti-Stonewall try ?