Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 27 Aug '06 23:23
    I am thinking about using this because of all the great things I have heard about the stonewall formation. I would appreciate any info that I can get on it. from variations to the plans that are used.
  2. 28 Aug '06 00:12
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    I am thinking about using this because of all the great things I have heard about the stonewall formation. I would appreciate any info that I can get on it. from variations to the plans that are used.
    Try key word search "dutch stonewall" or the like and see if some web page will help you. I had the Dutch used against me one time I think. I did not like the result I was getting but for some reason my opponent resigned.
  3. 28 Aug '06 02:18
    Originally posted by gambit3
    Try key word search "dutch stonewall" or the like and see if some web page will help you. I had the Dutch used against me one time I think. I did not like the result I was getting but for some reason my opponent resigned.
    I thought about that but than I thought that I would get the info from people on this sight because there seems to be an expert for every opening on this sight.
  4. 28 Aug '06 12:55
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    I thought about that but than I thought that I would get the info from people on this sight because there seems to be an expert for every opening on this sight.
    And not a GM in sight.
  5. 28 Aug '06 13:24
    The Stonewall is fun to play against lower-rated players because it affords Black the opportunity for a quick kingside attack without having to worry about White crashing through the center with his own counterattack. Another attractive feature is that the strategic ideas are simple and there is little theory to memorize. Yet the opening is untenable against strong opponents because of the very bad light-squared Bishop and a host of weak dark squares in Black’s camp. White can occupy a couple of dark-squared outposts, close the position on the other flank, then trade everything down until Black is stuck with a very bad Bishop vs. strong Knight or very good Bishop in the ending.
  6. 28 Aug '06 13:46
    Ritter is right - I played the Dutch stonewall against my friend Andrew, a stronger player, and it didn't work out so well. He found a great outpost for a knight on a dark square, and my light-square bishop was useless. Of course, his light-square bishop was very powerful. The game will soon be posted up on http://chessfiles.blogspot.com , if you're interested, and there are other games of interest there too.
  7. 28 Aug '06 14:02
    I have no proof but chances are that what you describe is more of a reflection on how you played this opening, i.e. your chess ability in the resulting positions. It probably says little about the opening itself.
  8. 28 Aug '06 14:08
    Obviously, a stronger player can beat a weaker one. I have no doubt that Kasparov could play a Dutch Stonewall and beat the pants off me. We have just pointed out the advantages and disadvantages. If you can win with the Dutch Stonewall, then by all means, play it. If you can win with 1. a4, play that too.
  9. 28 Aug '06 15:19
    After your loss, are you concluding that you need to understand the Dutch Stonewall better? Or to never play it again?
  10. 28 Aug '06 19:30
    Originally posted by Varenka
    After your loss, are you concluding that you need to understand the Dutch Stonewall better? Or to never play it again?
    Yeah, I'm with Varenka here. Simply because of the number of idiot's that run around and criticize the King's Gambit. People say absurd things about it like "I played it once, and black had a stronger kingside attack so I couldn't win, so this opening is too hard to play" or "If black can simplify and attack on the kingside he'll win" or "Fischer busted the King's Gambit, and if you just follow that article black will win". None of which are even remotely true. Don't comment on an opening unless you know about it. I'll comment on the KG (especially the 3.Bc4 variation), and other opening's in my repertoire, but I would never start criticizing an opening that I haven't played extensively. I don't play the dutch, but I've heard good things about it from some people, bad from others-what a surprise!! My suggestion-take the comments into consideration (From the people that know what they're talking about) and test it out for yourself to see what you think.
  11. 29 Aug '06 05:54
    Somehow, someone decided that I was poo-pooing the Dutch Stonewall. That is certainly not the case. It is a solid defense which has withstood the test of time. All I was pointing out was that the stonewall puts pawns on light squares, and thus creates a "bad" light square bishop for Black. There are many, many defenses that end up giving Black a bad bishop, at least temporarily. Don't sweat the Dutch Stonewall.

    As for the King's Gambit (and I'm not sure how that conversation got started), I've played it a lot and it has served me well. I believe Spassky used it frequently, and despite busting it, Fischer has used it in important tournament play as well. Both the Stonewall and the KG are solid, all that's left is your personal preference.
  12. 29 Aug '06 20:05
    Originally posted by ChessGuy


    As for the King's Gambit (and I'm not sure how that conversation got started),
    You can't find a post by cms that doesn't include at least a brief (and probably off-topic) reference to the KG
  13. 29 Aug '06 20:09
    Originally posted by zebano
    You can't find a post by cms that doesn't include at least a brief (and probably off-topic) reference to the KG


    I just can't help it.