Yeah, some of that is in Williams' DVD. Against white's f3, he recommends a line with Nh5 and Qh4 to play on the king side. But nobody at my level ever actually plays f3. As I improve and face tougher opponents, I'll have to re-watch that DVD to get a better feel for those lines, since somebody's bound to play f3 against me eventually, but it just hasn't happened yet.

MNb wrote on 07/27/10 at 23:26:36:

Yeah, if white plays e3 instead of g3, I go for Bb4 (after Nc3), b6 and Bb7. But I'm not sure if Bb4 is any good against white's king fianchetto. I believe Williams' "Play the Classical Dutch" covers it, so I should probably dig into that. I own it, but I haven't read it. At my level (1700ish USCF), I don't usually read opening books. I just use them to look up answers to specific questions.

Thanks for the comments, all!

I am not going to comment on the full classical dutch line because I do not know those lines in any sort of depth. But, if I am not mistaken a much stronger plan for Black when white plays this move order is 4...Bb4. I would recommend playing this to take full advantage of Whites unorthodox move order.

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 (4...Bb4)

However this would require understanding more positions after Bb4.

Exchange sacrifices and attacks can still lead to "typical" endgames, you know.  And as for the idea that a 1700 player shouldn't study a book like Silman's because it insufficiently reflects the dynamism of chess as currently played by 2700 players, or some such ...well, let's just say I disagree.

An aside on Chernev's Most Instructive Games book: There really are lots of instructive games I've enjoyed studying there (Smyslov-Reshevsky, 1948 is a favorite) and little overlap with Silman's Reassess which is good when you intend to read both.

But some of Chernev's comments look comically dogmatic from a modern point of view, for example when he criticizes some poor master for breaking the well-known rule "knights before bishops" in the opening, and condescendingly adds "Some people just won't listen!" In reality of course a master decides wich minor piece to develop from the specifics of the position, not by relying on some old Tarrasch rule intended for beginners.

Also there is a tendency to present the games as streamlined performances from the winner, rather than the hard and imperfect struggles most games (both classical and modern) really are.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with any of you. I do intend to do more general study eventually. Books that I already own and hope to actually have time to read in the near future include Chernev's "Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" and Silman's "Amateur's Mind" and "How to Reassess Your Chess".

But for now, I'm mostly focused on tactics, and researching specific scenarios that come up in my openings as they come up.

The problem is, when you sit down to play a game, your opponent will come up with something original that isn't covered in books on your opening.  I actually am advocating studying positional themes that arise in your opening--it's just that those themes are much more varied than you will find in any book on that particular opening.  How often in an anti-Sicilian line do you say something like: "Black has a French with his Queen's Bishop outside the pawn chain"?  In the Grand Prix attack (or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5), how often does White get an improved Nimzo-Indian?  Fairly often.  But you won't find much instruction on Nimzo-Indian themes in a Grand Prix book, so you need to look elsewhere.

Where to look?  Well, general books like How to Reassess Your Chess will help, of course.  Shereshevsky wrote a two-volume series of books on typical late middlegame/endgame strategic themes called Mastering the Endgame.  Edmar Mednis wrote an excellent book on strategic themes in the closed games called Strategic Chess.  

If you want to play better when facing 1.d4, you need to study the closed games, there's just nothing else you can do about it.  And trust me, studying a general book like How to Reassess Your Chess will NOT be a waste of time just because it doesn't deal exclusively with your opening.  Strategic themes are tied much more closely between different openings than people think.  For instance, in the Gruenfeld, Ragozin QGD, French Winawer, and QID, a focal-point of Black's counterplay is often linked with the c4-square.

MNb wrote on 07/11/10 at 20:30:36:

And this is exactly why I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the types of positions that come from the openings I play, as demonstrated by my starting this thread. Stigma hit the nail on the head when it comes to describing my method of positional study. I like studying general ideas and plans that come from my openings, not just memorizing specific move orders.

And it has worked for me - as I said, I've gone from 1300 to 1700 in two years as an adult. And here's the truly surprising part - I honestly think that I'm WORSE at tactics now than I was when I first broke 1400. I used to calculate deeper and see more clearly than I do now. Now, I know what to look for, I know how to set up positions that are better for me out of my openings, and I routinely blunder check for tactics 1-2 moves deep, but that's about it. This is why tactics are my primary focus in chess study right now - if I'm going to really improve, I need to get better at calculating.

Eventually, I will play over lots of master games in all openings, not just the ones I play. And I'll read books like the ones by Silman and others who deal with general positional play. But I'm not quite there yet.

--Fromper