1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+
is from a positional point of view desirable, beceause in the Iljin-Zjenevsky White's queen's bishop is the most dangerous piece. However White tends to get a substantial lead in development.

6.Qxd2 O-O 7.Nf3 d6 8.Nc3

Paul Cumbers wrote on 01/19/21 at 20:01:37:

As GM Taimanov already pointed out 40 years ago in the Classical Dutch with a pawn on d6 the eternal question is: after x...Nc6, what will be the answer to y.d5 ?
The same after 8.O-O (iso 8.Nc3) Nc6.

Also 8.O-O Nc6 9.Nc3 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 followed by exchange of queens looks rather dull.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 01/18/21 at 13:27:10:

4...Bb4+ is interesting (cf. the Keres Defence and the Bogo-Indian). I notice Vallejo Pons switched to this move in a 2019 game after two outings with 4...d5 in 2016. Now 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2 O-O 7.Bg2 d6 8.Nc3 transposes to the game Peralta-Alonso Rosell, analysed by Glenn Flear in the Jan 2018 update (https://www.chesspublishing.com/content/11/jan18.htm). Best might be 8...Nc6 9.Rd1 (more challenging than 9.O-O e5!) 9...Ne4 10.Nxe4 fxe4 11.Ng5 d5 which Glenn gives as "probably OK" for Black.

GM Moskalenko in The Diamond Dutch gives a few examples with 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.O-O O-O 6.b4, recommending Nc6. Are there transpo issues? If White plays (from your move order) 4.b4 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O ?

brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 15:16:47:

Yep. previously I thought White could demonstrate an edge after 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3 d5 5.f3 because White controls square e4. I should have added that as far as I know GM Moskalenko's improvement hasn't been tried yet in practice on any level, despite Black's abysmal results in 43 games after 2014 with this structure.
I completely subscribe what you write regarding move orders. AfaIc move order issues begin at move 1; I have quit the idea that the Classical Dutch can be played as a one cure for all (note to myself: don't forget to take a look at 1.g3).

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 01/18/21 at 13:27:10:

I never studied this so I am not going to make any statements about the evaluation. I do play Bb4 against some Dutch setups but then white has normally played already the knight at c3. Anyway I think we do have to agree that the move-order plays a big role here in this discussion. Therefore it could even make sense to investigate a move-order with Bf4 before c4.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 01/18/21 at 13:27:10:

I am fully aware of it. On the other hand how often is a game of 100 years ago still relevant for the current state of the theory? Sure it happens sometimes but my experience tells me that I have a much bigger probability of getting interesting games to study by looking at recent games for the theory of an opening. In the end you want to work as efficient as possible. Time is limited and there are so many openings I want/ need to study.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 01/18/21 at 13:27:10:

I have a few comments here.
1) Yes I do meet sometimes amateurs which have a brilliant idea and they do know it is brilliant. On the other hand I also know that 99 out of their 100 ideas are garbage. So it is a similar story as the games of the old masters. I better spend my study at games played by strong players and I am sure this is also how professionals work today.
2) The number of games available to the public in the time of Tal are an infinite fraction of what is available today. We are flooded by games today, have a look to my latest article on lichess: http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/12/lichess.html in which I wrote that in one month only more than 78 million standard games were played on the lichess-server. Looking at all played games today is simply impossible unless you are some kind of cyborg.

brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:


I guess that I should've added that I am talking about the Dutch stonewall which has its own move-order and should therefore also be treated very differently that a semi-slav. I am no semi-slav player at all.

brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

People tell me that I am replying with too long answers. So I try to simplify things but then it doesn't cover of course the exceptions. Anyway we are digressing as the essence about our little quarrel is about how well-known is this concept of playing g3 without fianchetting the bishop later against the Dutch stonewall. For me it is not something I had studied ever before and I am playing religiously the opening for more than 20 years against masters. The claim that it is common knowledge for 100 years simply doesn't map with what I see in my practice of probably thousand games with this opening.

brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

I wrote several articles about this on my blog see
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2014/02/old-wine-in-new-skins.html
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2016/07/old-wine-in-new-skins-part-2.html
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/06/old-wine-in-new-skins-part-3.html

With more than 25 years of competitive chess and study, I definitely have an edge in that domain compared to my often much younger opponents. Especially at online chess old lines are extremely efficient.

MNb wrote on 01/18/21 at 12:53:49:

Oh I was replying to Paul as he was asking us if it was covered in the book of Sedlak. I could've just said no but I thought that it is also useful to indicate why we shouldn't expect such lines to be covered in opening-books even if they are really strong.

It took me some time to find your game until I discovered that the name in my megadatabase is Gamundi instead of Gamundio.
He played only once this setup and then again from the wrong move-order as the stonewall was played before g3. So again I am not surprised that this game has never been covered in any openingbooks about the stonewall. At least I am not aware of it and I do possess/ know quite some material about the opening.

Back when I played the Dutch, something like 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 is just what I was hoping for. 4...Bb4+ is much closer to equality than black gets in the Stonewall or Iljin-Zhenevsky.


brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

When filtering a database by Elo then older games can be missed because the Elo is not filled in. ChessBase sometimes fills in an "historical" Elo, but not always.


brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

Sometimes beginners do have a clue and still nobody takes notice of it. Tal used to look at everything, he said you could learn even from beginner games. Of course he could "look" at a game blindfold and at great speed. I don't look at everything, but my working database does have games by amateurs in it. Lev Alburt's Chess Life column had true beginner games, even some of those games made it into my database.


brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

Showalter and Pillsbury were both masters. But Showalter is less known, I'm not sure if he would typically be assigned an historical Elo.


brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

I disagree on this one. Pachman used to quote Pillsbury's games in the stonewall and anti-stonewall setups that arise from the Semi-Slav move order, which is how black usually did it back in his day. I'm pretty sure strong play from people like Pillsbury is what made black abandon this approach. Soltis gave a classic Pillsbury example where black was crushed by the queenside space advantage and an endgame sacrifice against the light-squared pawn chain. Rubinstein's Meran with ...d5xc4 was a revelation compared to the previous stonewall (whether the pawn was on f7 or f5).


brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

Do you mean almost any Dutch specialist?
Quote:

Brabo, I'm not sure if it's just rhetorical style or if you actually think this way, but you tend to write in absolutist always/never terms. In chess there are many exceptions. Basically you are correct on this one, Larsen is agreeing with you, but he also gave a caveat, which you almost never do.


brabo wrote on 01/18/21 at 08:22:05:

Those of us who are willing to spend time looking at old games and old theory are able to pose many problems for those who prepare based on filtered 2500+ (or 2400+, or 2300+) database games. As the saying goes, everything's new that is well forgotten.