I used this thread in my latest article. Any comments here or on my blog are welcome.
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2014/03/theory.html

Aronian playing 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 right now at Tata Steel

ChevyBanginStyle wrote on 11/11/13 at 03:57:56:


Playing Qf3 is quite a nice piece of mayhem, because you threaten Qg3 to hit both c7 and g6. Computer engines think there's an advantage to white, but not a decisive one. 

I play in the same team as one of the players mentioned, he plays openings to get a decent position rather than employ or meet red hot theory. If anyone had told him about 6. Qf3, he might have given it a punt. So 2. Bf4 can have the same motives as 2. Bg5 with the advantage that you don't need to know anything about the lines where they trap your piece. 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 h6 3. Bh4 g5 4. Bg3 f4 or even 4. e4 or 4. e3

Found this in the comments of the Chesscafe blog in response to the review of Rudel's book on the 2.Bf4 Dutch:

http://blog.chesscafe.com/?p=1954#comments

Chris Wainscott in defense of his review:

"Lastly, I’d like to address the comment about concrete lines of analysis to refute the author’s lines. I don’t have any. But no offense, I shouldn’t have to have them. The point of an opening book in my opinion should be to give clear and concise ideas and lines of play based on best play by both sides. It shouldn’t be some stuff that has never been played on a high level that is cobbled together and then sold to the public as though it is a well thought out and extremely playable system."

Well that cleared up everything for me.

Unrelated to the Dutch, but a nice game nonetheless:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1705075

tp2205 wrote on 11/07/13 at 18:36:06:


There's a thought. If you are partial to the general mayhem that can be generated from 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 and you know your opponent is a Leningrad player, perhaps trying to move order him with 2. Bf4 is worth a try.

Whilst it's obvious enough that a player using the Colle needs to have something against the Dutch, I've never really understood the point of playing the Colle if in order to get a reasonable position you need to know lots of strange sub variations. Why not just have the equivalent knowledge of long-standing main lines and get a good position in most of them?

There's every point in playing 2. Bf4 for trying to hack up the Dutch, but a prejudice against Colle players is that they are just interested in having a mechanical system of development, which 1.d4 f5 2. Bf4 doesn't really sit with.

The Colle system can be used as a means of transposing into a favourable line or even just a line of something else. To make that work, you have to have a wide theory knowledge, negating the "don't need to know theory" advocacy of the Colle. 

ErictheRed wrote on 11/07/13 at 17:29:54:


I think he was making a case for 5.Qf3 with the threat of Qg3 targeting c7 and g6. Maybe you think "refutation" is too strong a word, but I wouldn't want to be Black.

The recent review on chesscafe is completely inept. If you're going to try to trash a book with Houdini, put a little more effort than "Houdini says +.38, so Black is just fine. Checkmate, Rudel!" (These are not the actual words, but the tone of the review is not too far off.) Really, this line was the biggest "slam" with any concrete justification I could find. In the final diagram, I don't think the idea of Nf4 (with a possible threat of Ng5) after Be5 is too hard to find. Really strange examples...

Of course, if your chess objections don't hold any water, you can always attack the rating of the author. This has even more credibility the lower rated you are yourself.

"Dismantling the Dismantler" is the actual title of the review: what a joke!

Some of the book reviews on chesscafe are absolutely terrible. Maybe this reviewer is attempting to impress us with his understanding of chess or trying to sound clever. I don't know.

Now I really want to know what the one-move refutation of 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.h4 h6 is!  I feel like such a patzer for not being able to figure it out.   

Personally, I'd prefer a queenside fianchetto in these lines, just letting the Bishop sit on f4.  I don't think it's a very good square for it, whether or not Black manages to hit it with ...e5.  But I guess just about every Black setup is playable, besides the Stonewall.