When I state almost no games in the database then I only consider games played by masters (+2300). Even beginners sometimes play strong novelties or ideas but they have no clue how strong it is themselves and nobody takes notice of it.

I do consider Pillsbury a master but his game never influenced the theory of the stonewall. The very different move-order doesn't inspire to study this game as any Dutch specialist will tell you that you don't go for a stonewallsetup if white hasn't played g3 yet which happened in that game.

Anyway I don't think you can blame Sedlak of not having covered setups which were never played by a grandmaster in on the board chess (at least I couldn't find any such game in my megadatabase).

I am pretty sure he doesn't. I also find almost no games with it in the database. In my own database of online played games (+70.000) I find 1 with it. I won but after the opening I was clearly worse.

I notice Stockfish is very enthusiastic about it. Anyway I am not surprised that more and more setups are found which put the stonewall deeper and deeper into troubles. 
I already predicted that in my article http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2019/06/computers-achieve-autonomy-part-2.html

How did you bump on it?

Playing the stonewall continuously for more than 20 years against masterlevel I was of course also eager to buy this book. Today I finally received my copy and immediately started to check the analysis.

Overall I am satisfied with the book. At many points Sedlak recommends lines for black which I considered myself already as mainline but he also brings new interesting solutions which I didn't check yet.

Still the big problems I see with the stonewall are not solved or at least Sedlak is far too optimistic in his evaluations. Now you probably wonder which lines I mean but I hesitate to give here many details as some of my future opponents (FMs, IMs) are also reading this forum so I prefer to just point to the chapters if it is still part of my repertoire.
1) Chapter 2 - Fianchetto with Bf4 page 67. Sedlak doesn't mention a very strong novelty for white at move 11 by Leela which looks very sad for black.
2) Chapter 4 - 7.Nc3 page 111. Again Sedlak doesn't mention a very strong novelty for white at move 11 by Leela which I already analyzed deeply and looks not good at all for black. However at page 117 Sedlak already warns the reader that the line is still extremely fresh and new ideas are bound to emerge for both sides.
3) Chapter 6 - 5.Nh3 page 198 Sedlak is far too optimistic in the evaluation of the 10.Nf3 line. He ends the line in which Leela and Stockfish are still showing a clear edge for white. I also want to indicate that 11.Qd1 is interesting with the idea of 11...dxc4 12.Ne5 and also white's play can be improved in the line 12.Qxc4 Qd5 13.Rfc1. This definitely doesn't improve on the 9...h6- line which I have played several times but doesn't fully equalize either.
4) Chapter 9 - Move Orders page 253 A2) 3.Bf4
Only a half page for this system which nowadays have become extremely popular even at a high level. Also the coverage of it is far too optimistic. First it often makes sense to wait or even not play h3. Next often white plays Nfd2 with the idea of retaking with the queen so the other knight can be put at the much more active c3 square. These positions are very hard to play and probably don't equalize for black which is also why I stopped playing them. Nothing of this is is mentioned in the book.
5 ) Chapter 9 - Move Orders page 278 A2) 2.Bg5
I am happy to see Sedlak chooses 2...h6 as that is also what I play but the coverage is rather bad.
In B71) 4.e3 Sedlak refers to the correspondence game Ingersol - Bokar for the 7.h5-line but at move 16 where he breaks off Stockfish and Leela give about +1 for white and they show several promising continuations for white. This is not what I would like to sign for with black.
In B722) 4.e4 Nf6 5.e5 e6 6.Bg3 has several issues.
First nothing mentioned about 7.Be2 with which Leela scored a crushing win in 2019. Also after 7.Bd3 Rg8 there is nothing mentioned about 8.Nh3 which the engines favor a lot and looks very grim for black. Anyway I play other lines here.
6) Chapter 10 - 1.c4 and 1. Nf3 page 303
I played this system for several years but stopped playing it as I couldn't find any good patch for the line B321) 7.cxd5 exd5 8.d3. At the end of the chapter Sedlak warns the reader that he usually avoids it and plays something different so I am not surprised to see that engines give +1 what he evaluates as normal play for black (see line 9.Nb5N). A pawn down I don't consider normal play even for a stonewall.

There are many more smaller details but above are the bigger issues I noticed in just 2 hours while checking against my own notes.

Again this doesn't mean that this is a bad book. There is a plenty of good stuff that I hoped not to see as now it will be also available for others.

Sedlak does not try to play ...Bb4 and goes for a setup with ...c5, in which 5.a3 would definitely not be the best use of a tempo. The position looks quite difficult to play (for both sides!) to me. His featured game is Kazhgaleyev - Vallejo, Moscow 2015 if you are interested.

I last played the Dutch this way about 35 years ago. At that time I thought it was 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 b6? (my punctuation). How is black doing today after 5.a3! (my punctuation again)? I can see only a worse Petrosian QID here, or maybe it's a worse English Defense. I also agree about 4...Bb4 5.Ne2!

I experimented with 3...Bb4 but ...f7-f5 doesn't fit against incisive white play. Later I tried 2...Bb4+ before giving up 1...e6. Might as well play the Nimzo-Indian.

I’m curious about chapter 1, since when I play the Dutch with 1...e6 online I always seem to get something similar.

After 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 what does Sedlak suggest? Are we still heading for a Stonewall with 4...d5, or the more commonly suggested 4...Bb4?

TD wrote on 07/15/20 at 19:02:56:


If these sources are not mentioned in the bibliography it is probably fair to say that author has not used or referenced either work for this book.

With GM Sedlak being recognized as an expert in actually playing the Stonewall he has probably simply been able to rely  more on his own analysis and research than the works of others.