Black responds 1. ... f5 to stop white getting a big centre with 2. e4. Assuming white doesn't go for a gambit line then black normally trys to challenge white for the centre either with a stonewall formation or by getting e7 - e5 in, keeps white restrained on the queenside (a7-a5 is often played with this in mind) and then goes for a king side attack maybe involving g2-g4. White's usual plans involve trying to get in e2 - e4, restraining black's central ambitions, and going for queenside expansion.
These games are sort of typical: Stonewall: Game 1235657 Classical: Game 1710485, Leningrad: Game 1050452
I have Starting Out the Dutch Defence, by Neil McDonald, and I think it's quite a good introduction, I'd recommend it. Having said that I think he doesn't explain some of the basic stuff sufficiently; for example in the Dutch the most usual plans for white involve putting the bishop on g2. The Leningrad variation is an attempt by black to get a good King's Indian by playing f7 - f5 before getting the knight out. White normally financhettos his king's bishop against the Dutch, but this is far less popular against the K's Indian. Both set ups are possible against both the Dutch Leningrad and the King's Indian, so why not use the same one against both openings? McDonald doesn't comment on this; he just says that white is unlikely to avoid the fianchetto (I wish he'd tell my opponents this...), but does cover the possibility adequately. As far as I see it the difference in the openings is that in the King's Indian white has already played e2 - e4, normally on the 4th move, and the threat of fxe4 is far off in the early middle game, whereas in the Dutch black is already exerting direct pressure on the square with a pawn from the first move, but that's just saying what happens in the opening, it doesn't explain why white (normally) chooses one set up over another since both are perfectly reasonable against both openings. Is it just fashion, or is it an issue of timing?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere is more incentive for white to fianchetto against the leningrad dutch than against the kid. Against the kid, white has already advanced e4, d5 thus locking the center for a while and impeding the bishop. Against the dutch, the center is more fluid. e4 is still open and the bishop's scope is enhanced through the center and to black's queenside. Also. if the white bishop were on d3 or e2 against the dutch, it would impede rook pressure on the files.
]
I have Starting Out the Dutch Defence, by Neil McDonald, and I think it's quite a good introduction, I'd recommend it. Having said that I think he doesn't explain some of the basic stuff sufficiently; for example in the Dutch the most usual plans for white involve putting the bishop on g2. The Leningrad variation is an attempt by black to get a good ...[text shortened]... reasonable against both openings. Is it just fashion, or is it an issue of timing?
Originally posted by RegicidalVery good point, but...
There is more incentive for white to fianchetto against the leningrad dutch than against the kid. Against the kid, white has already advanced e4, d5 thus locking the center for a while and impeding the bishop. Against the dutch, the center is more fluid. e4 is still open and the bishop's scope is enhanced through the center and to black's queenside. Also. ...[text shortened]... e white bishop were on d3 or e2 against the dutch, it would impede rook pressure on the files.
1) I agree that in the K's Indian if the pawn centre has become closed the fianchetto will be pretty ineffective, but hasn't black done the same thing in the knowledge that a closed centre is a possibility. Normally black is attacking on the kingside and white on the queenside so there is a difference, but even so, the role of the bishop in guarding over the central squares is obviously important for black so why does white avoid it?
2) White has a lot of control over whether the centre becomes closed or not in the KI, with or without the fianchetto (3. g3) either player can make central pawn exchanges.
3) In both openings black is liable to try for a kingside attack, probably involving a pawn storm, so avoiding the fianchetto gives black less to shoot at. Normally black can get his pawns moving faster in the Dutch than in the KI as the king's knight isn't in the way, so the fianchetto is probably more vulnerable in the opening it is more likely to be played in.
4) One line against the Leningrad goes: 1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. 0-0 0-0 6. c4 d6 7. Nc3 Qe8 8. d5 which prevents e7 - e5 but also restricts the white bishop on g2. Although black may well try to undermine it with 8. ... c6 which will open the diagonal again.
5) White can't be sure black is going to play the Leningrad, potentially until the fourth move (eg 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d6 4. moves g7) and the centre gets pretty cluttered in the Stonewall variation, and a stonewall formation can arise from the Classical and more rarely the Leningrad. So while in general the centre is dynamic, it can become pretty static.
What I'm getting at is that I really don't think that it is clear that white's best chances are gained by supporting e4 from g2 in the Dutch and McDonald should have talked about the reasons for the very early choices each player makes.