Calling all Dutch Defence players - how do you ...

... handle 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5

Someone played this against me OTB last week, and I didn't handle it very well (though I drew eventually). We went 2.. h6 3. Bh4 g5 4. e4.

Now I was smart enough not to take the bishop both here (when there is mate in one) and after 4 .. Bg7 5. Bg3 when you can win the bishop with 5.. f4 but it will cost you far too much.

But I didn't know what the best plan is. My opponent told me that he also plays the Dutch defence as black, but goes into it via the move order 1.d4 e6 2. c4/Nf3/g3 f5, so as to avoid the Bg5 lines, which he hates for black. This means he has to be prepared to play the French (which I'm not) if white plays 2.e4.

My opening books are thin on these lines. Anyone got any ideas?

1.d4 f5 2.Bg2 Nf6

if white wants to lose the bishop pair from the get go, fine with me. and later on the kingside pawns will roll him over.

1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6

Ignore the bishop ... I agree it doesn't do the pawn structure on the kingside any good.

Originally posted by d36366
... handle 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5

Someone played this against me OTB last week, and I didn't handle it very well (though I drew eventually). We went 2.. h6 3. Bh4 g5 4. e4.

Now I was smart enough not to take the bishop both here (when there is mate in one) and after 4 .. Bg7 5. Bg3 when you can win the bishop with 5.. f4 but it will cost you far too much.

B ...[text shortened]... not) if white plays 2.e4.

My opening books are thin on these lines. Anyone got any ideas?

1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6, transposing to the Leningrad.

To drive the point home:
1.d4 f5 2.Bg6 g6
I know im probably the 5th person to say it in this thread...but seriously, you can ignore it with no problems...just make sure you have the bishop on g7 before putting the knight on f6, so that you can maintain your pawn structure if white displays the bizzare desire to trade away his bishop for your knight (not that bishops are always better, but in the positions that follow, it often is easier to use.)

Originally posted by endgamer
To drive the point home:
1.d4 f5 2.Bg6 g6
I know im probably the 5th person to say it in this thread...but seriously, you can ignore it with no problems...just make sure you have the bishop on g7 before putting the knight on f6, so that you can maintain your pawn structure if white displays the bizzare desire to trade away his bishop for your knight (not that bishops are always better, but in the positions that follow, it often is easier to use.)

Is a fianchetto setup the only decent option here? I normally play a stonewall set up, without a fianchetto. Is Bg5 a normal move (albeit later) in the Leningrad or is this a sub-optimal Leningrad line for white?

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6, transposing to the Leningrad.

Exactly. Except I didn't know it was called Leningrad, I just found that works 😉

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6, transposing to the Leningrad.

White are not obliged to play 3.c4 - they can play 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 , 3.h4!?, 3.c3!? or even 3.e4!?.

Originally posted by Korch
White are not obliged to play 3.c4 - they can play 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 , 3.h4!?, 3.c3!? or even 3.e4!?.

That's just one thing you can do.

Originally posted by wormwood
1.d4 f5 2.Bg2 Nf6

if white wants to lose the bishop pair from the get go, fine with me. and later on the kingside pawns will roll him over.

I did some checking, and it turns out I remembered wrong. the thing I was after was what IM andrew martin recommended, which is to push d5 and let white exchange BxNf6. the difference was that here white has the pawn break c4, but martin was talking about 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5, where the c4 break is blocked by the knight on c3. white gets a bit blocked and black gets a nice development after 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.Bxf6 exf6 as in the following fen:




for 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 andrew martin recommends 2...c3. after that, 3.Nc3 transposes to the d5+BxNf6 idea. 3.c4 gets 3...Qb3 threatening Qxb2 then h6 drives bishop back (possibly trapping it, I've won a lot of pieces there). the idea is to ram e5 in as soon as possible, then it's business as usual for leningrad players.

Originally posted by Korch
White are not obliged to play 3.c4 - they can play 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 , 3.h4!?, 3.c3!? or even 3.e4!?.

that 3. e4 looks pretty interesting - I might give it a try when I come up against the dutch defense again - is it a gambit line of its own or does it transpose to the staunton gambit?

Originally posted by schakuhr
... is it a gambit line of its own or does it transpose to the staunton gambit?

If black will place his knight on f6 (for example 3...fxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6) it will transpose into Staunton gambit, but if black will delay that then it may be not the same. But anyway - ideas are similar.

Originally posted by d36366
Is a fianchetto setup the only decent option here? I normally play a stonewall set up, without a fianchetto. Is Bg5 a normal move (albeit later) in the Leningrad or is this a sub-optimal Leningrad line for white?

In the Leningrad proper white doesn't normally put his bishop there. I don't know if it's 'sub-optimal' or not. Actually you want to be wary of thinking in those terms about openings, plenty of moves are possible for white and you have to cope with them on their merits. Just because something isn't the main line, or hasn't been tryed before doesn't automatically disqualify it from being playable or even good.

There was quite a lot of discussion about the 2.Bg5 line in this thread: Thread 72716.

Originally posted by Korch
White are not obliged to play 3.c4 - they can play 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 , 3.h4!?, 3.c3!? or even 3.e4!?.

but if white does not play c4, then black can move into stone wall variation in which white cannot challenge the d5 post OR plays c4, but a tempo behind (if c3 were played first).

Originally posted by d36366
... handle 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5

Someone played this against me OTB last week, and I didn't handle it very well (though I drew eventually). We went 2.. h6 3. Bh4 g5 4. e4.

Now I was smart enough not to take the bishop both here (when there is mate in one) and after 4 .. Bg7 5. Bg3 when you can win the bishop with 5.. f4 but it will cost you far too much.

B not) if white plays 2.e4.

My opening books are thin on these lines. Anyone got any ideas?

As you already mentioned, you can avoid that line once and for all by playing e6 first. You can transpose into Classical Dutch or the Stonewall varitation.You can play e6 exclusively against any of the white's first moves.

Stonewall Dutch is very solid and extremely difficult to breakthrough. The game is rather static than dynamic, slow manouvers dominate the game.

You basically play without the white coloured bishop(hemmed behind central pawns); you can try to activate it mainly on b7 but not very effective at all. There are some unique and interesting ideas to active it on h5!? through d7-e7-h5 but it is long (although you can take your time in this opening for long manouvers and interesting ideas) and again not effective.

This opening is definaltely not for everyone!

However, Botvinnik, the best player ever who played the Stonewall Dutch, handles this opening with great precison.

The below game is a great example of slowly building up an unexpected kingside blow in this unpopular opening.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031826


My last game against a friend I stike "lucky"to win the game by checkmate surprisingly in 26 moves!! I formed my classical Dutch Stonewall Setup with my central pawns for a solid defence to block the center. Then, I decided to open the game on the queenside (by pawn breakthroughs) and made timely minor piece exchanges "only after" winning the extremely important central pawn early in the game. In middle game, my opponent made hollow threats by advacing his queen rook pawn, I ignored (is the best defence) all his plans and he unexpectedly blundered to allow me a beautiful finish.

Here's the Game 3795066

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
p.s. Yes!! it took me "eight edits" to write this down in order to write without grammatical mistakes in a foreign language.