Wow - I'm genuinely amazed anyone remembers that article.  I wrote it when I was 15(!).

Although 6.Nc3 is definitely dangerous, if black finds 6...Nc6 he should probably be fine there.

A more promising idea for white is 3.Nd2 Bg7 4.e3, with the idea of 4...Nf6 5.h4 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Bd3!, when white intends 7...d5 8.g4, exploiting black's weakened light squares and lagging development.

Ultimately black should be fine in these lines, however that doesn't make them easy to defend in practical play.

All the best,
Eddie

Nelson wrote on 03/24/11 at 18:01:18:

This line makes no sense. I have tried, but have no idea what move sequence you exactly had in mind.
1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6 3.e4 fxe4 4.f3 Bg7 5.fxe4 c5 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.c3 h6 8.Bf4 Nc6 (g5) 9.cxd4 g5 10.Be3 Nf6 11.Nc3 Qa5 12.Qd2 doesn't loot too bad, while 5.Nc3 is a reasonable option as well. It looks like a favourable version of the Staunton Gambit.

Dear all,

Sorry for move error on last post.
Queries were regarding move 4 not move 3.

Regards
Nelson

Markovich wrote on 03/14/11 at 21:15:39:


The header asks for thoughts on the Dutch, which is what raja provided. If the poster wanted a focused discussion he would/should have chosen another title, for example citing the moves. Not that I particularly enjoy it, but this does seem the practice of the forum i.e. re-uttering  similar statements every time the chance arises. For example, it seems every topic mentioning Knigs amgit (or other numerous uncorrected misspelled headings in that section) turn out into practically the same discussion every time, usually by the same participants...

Anyway, I don't see how using foul language would make anything better, or less derailing...

MNb wrote on 03/14/11 at 21:09:10:


Because it craps up threads with this everlasting "I really don't care about your question, but here's something I'd like to talk about" B.S.  It's not only the OP who has a stake in on-topic discussions.  But we're off topic!

raja wrote on 03/11/11 at 09:06:16:


Do you see how you derailed the whole freaking thread with this off topic post?  It really has nothing to do with the OP.  I would scold you more but I sometimes do the same thing myself.

As to the OP, 3.e4 has been played in quite a few games, 85 in my data base, and it scores well.  Somebody named Csaba Csiszar, rated 2400+ has played it a couple of times (most recently losing to a mere 2200 at Ohrid 2009 after 3...fxe4 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.f3 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.fxe4 Nh6.  I like this way of playing it for Black.).  The only very recent game I could find where both players were strong was Cobb - Dzhumaev, Caerleon 2007, which continued 3...fxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 e3 6.Qd3 d5 7.Qxe3 Bg7 8.O-O-O O-O 9.Bh6 Nc6 10.Bxg7 Kxg7 and Dzhumaev went on to win. I don't believe in this way of playing the black side of it, however.  

4.Nc3 appears to be much preferred to 4.f3.  

I suggest you consult the databases before you do much more work on this idea.  No reason to reinvent the wheel.

Nelson wrote on 03/11/11 at 15:12:13:

i personally feel that its easier to play for an advantage against a Dutch than against a french defense.

Nelson wrote on 03/11/11 at 15:12:13:

You'd be amazed how many 1. d4 players are scared to go into the white side of the French. I play 1. d4 e6 as black to reach the Classical Dutch while avoiding the Anti-Dutch lines, and you'd be amazed how infrequently I see 2. e4. We're talking maybe 2 or 3 times per 100 games. 

I even had one opponent tell me that the French was the main reason he switched from 1. e4 to 1. d4! And I always thought the Sicilian was the scariest thing a 1. e4 player could face (though my personal white whale as a 1. e4 player is the Caro Kann, oddly enough).