Was lucky my opponent didn't find 33. ...Ne2, but I was a bit surprised by this opening and looked up Wiki for the best. Although, after reading it a bit, it says 2. c4 is the best response, what I ended up with was 2. g3. Thoughts?

[Event "rated standard match"]
[Site "Free Internet Chess Server"]
[Date "2009.07.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "troycm"]
[Black "wellthoughtplan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1424"]
[BlackElo "1646"]
[ECO "A81"]
[TimeControl "1200"]

1. d4 f5 2. g3 d5 3. f4 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bd2 Bd6 7. Nf3 c6 8. h3 Qb6
9. Na4 Qc7 10. Ne5 Nbd7 11. Qe2 b5 12. Nc3 b4 13. Na4 Ne4 14. O-O-O g6 15.
Rg1 c5 16. h4 c4 17. h5 Nxe5 18. fxe5 Be7 19. hxg6 hxg6 20. g4 c3 21. Be1 Qa5
22. b3 Bd7 23. gxf5 exf5 24. Rxg6 Bxa4 25. bxa4 Qxa4 26. Rxa6 Rxa6 27. Qxa6
Qxa6 28. Bxa6 Bg5 29. Rd3 Ke7 30. Bb7 Ke6 31. a4 Rh1 32. Rd1 Bxe3+ 33. Kb1
Nd2+ 34. Ka2 Nc4 35. Kb3 Bd2 36. Kxb4 Rxe1 37. Rxe1 Bxe1 38. Ba6 f4 39. Bxc4
dxc4 40. Kxc4 f3 41. Kd3 f2 42. Ke2 Kd5 43. a5 Kc6 44. e6 f1=Q+ 45. Kxf1 Bh4
46. Ke2 Kb5 47. d5 Kxa5 48. d6 Kb6 49. e7 Bxe7 50. dxe7 {wellthoughtplan
resigns} 1-0

I'm curious as to who wrote/edited the piece in Wikipedia; 2.g3 has long been the most popular response to this form of the Dutch, as there's no need to play c4 straight away, and I doubt you'd find many strong players who would claim that 2.c4 is better.

Er, sorry, let me rephrase: I found several variations of 2. c4, but only one of 2. g3. Yeah, definitely gave the wrong impression there, hehe.

Why is it better, btw? I'm assuming it's because it sets up 3. ...f4.

1. d4 f5 2. g4!

I'm actually serious here. The ideas are somewhat analogous to a kingside benko gambit type idea. White is scoring very well with it, and it life tilts dutch players. I believe there's some videos on ICC by a GM about it.

As for the game itself, I would strongly encourage you to keep more dynamic/tension based pawn structures. These sort of stone wall structures can be very difficult to play if you're not rather familiar with them already. So, for example, after 2. .. d5 you should probably be thinking about how to break open the center eventually. And the most straight forward way would be f3/e4. Instead you play f4 so that's out the window. You did VERY WELL to see that now the best way to break open the center is g4, at least I think you saw that.

Things start to go bad after Qb6. Always look for counterplay instead of just defending every threat. Here for example, I would prefer to simply let him grab the pawn if he wants. It misplaces his queen and you get rolling fast. So I would much prefer 9. Bd3! In fact, this move makes Qxb2 a blunder - but even without the tactic it's just a better move. Don't play defensively!

How 9. Bd3 Qxb2?? is refuted: Tactics like that might look complex, but they typically happen when you just make good aggressive positionally oriented moves and your opponent does dumb things like pawn hunting while undeveloped.

Anyhow, even without the tactic the idea is simple. Just play Bd3 and rush through g4 and crush black. So you did much better this game - just stop getting distracted. 8. .. Qb6 is an illogical move. Black is undeveloped, uncastled and aims to go pawn hunting on the opposite side of the board where the action is developing? Let him then punish him for it!

Dire has given some absolutely great advice in your game threads, tcm. I really hope you've read his posts carefully.

dutch clutch, all day long

most Dutch players seem to play 1...e6, so they must be avoiding something, but I've always been curious exactly what. Is it this?

They avoid lots of other sidelines, like 2. Bg5, 2. Nc3 and the likes.

They also get the possibility of entering Nimzo-Dutch type play with a quick ...Bb4.

Yes, playing 1 ... e6 allows black to avoid the major sidelines 2. Bg5, 2. Nc3, 2. e4 and 2. g4.

I'm not sure I see how 1 ... f5 prevents this as long as black follows up with e6 at some point in the near future.

As far as I know 1.d4 f5 2.g4 is not as good as Dire said, as long as Black remembers to return the pawn after 2...fxg4 3.h3 with 3...g3.

The reason for playing 1...e6 is in fact in order to prevent stuff like the Staunton and other tricky lines...

I think it's a little silly to call something like 2. .. fxg4 3. h3 g3 some sort of refutation. White is even scoring 63% after 4. fxg Nf6 5. Bg2. Not that that means very much as most of the black players were quite weak but that's far from a refutation. After 5. .. d5, which seems to be what black always played, I'd strongly prefer white.

But this is all an irrelevant aside on two levels. First reason being I personally prefer the wild 3. e4 with the idea of 3. .. d5 4. e5 Bf5 5. Ne2 with a very complicated position. This is just a position I enjoy playing and have had good results with it - but I would never recommend it. It seems that surely white does not have enough for the pawn, but somehow I keep winning.

And more importantly, the purpose of recommend it to OP wasn't so he could prove some sort of high level theoretical advantage against his opponent. It was to easily create an interesting and dynamic position where both players have lots of possibilities and the most creative and accurate player will win, as opposed to the position that was obtained which was very dry and difficult to play for somebody who probably is not very familiar with these sort of positions. It also doesn't hurt that from some of OP's previous games, he seems to have a desire to aggressively push flank pawns early in the game, so this should fit his style just fine!

Well I certainly didn't say that 3...g3 is a refutation, but rather that it is a relatively safe way to equality.

From what I can see in my database, Black shouldn't have many problems in the line 4.fxg3 Nf6 4.Bg2 d5 - Black fared badly in the line 5.Nc3 Bf5 but I imagine that this because the bishop will be harassed by g3-g4 at some point, chasing it around. Here some strong players utilised a plan based on c5 instead of Bf5 when the Nc3 looks a bit silly.

This is an impressive game I found from the master himself. Granted, Tregubov had not reached his current strength back then and this is pre-engine age - but notice how quickly White goes down after 9.Bf4.

I have the strong feeling that 7.Nf3 is already a mistake. 7.e4 or 7.Dd3 might be better - but Black could probably also have played 6...c5 first. So, of course it's not an easy win for Black but it's also not rocket science to get a sensible position after Nc3. Maybe there is sharper stuff available for White.

The other idea 3.e4 looks very impressive for White if Black does indeed play 3...d5, which looks very dangerous. There are some games that feature 3...e5 which looks alright after a quick check but I haven't dug deeper into it yet.

Anyway, I play the Dutch only very occasionally and especially in blitz games I have suffered against the g4-stuff - but I would still maintain that this line doesn't pose too many problems once the Black player has put a little effort in looking up a defense.

Your point that it is a good line to reach a complex position where it is possible to outplay an opponent is very valid, of course.

Hi swingdoc,

I should have been more clear. White will typically respond to 1...e6 with 2. c4. As a result, black will be able to play Bb4, either with check or pinning a knight on c3.

On the other hand, white can (and sometimes does) respond to 1...f5 with 2. g3/Bg2/Nf3/0-0 or something like that, delaying the development of the c3 knight. In the meantime, black will have to find a different way to develop his dark squared bishop. White is *much* less likely to meet 1. d4 e6 with 2. Nf3 or g3, since 2...c5 forces him to play an entirely different opening which may or may not be in his repertoire.

Of course, to meet 1. d4 with 1...e6 black also needs to have the French in his repertoire .

Edit: The quote didn't make it clear what I was referring to. Earlier I mentioned that black sometimes enters the Dutch via 1...e6 with the intention of entering Nimzo-Dutch play, while swingdoc said he didn't see how the 1...f5 move order prevented this.

Hi Dire,

You might want to check out SHAKMATY BEREOLOS (yes, the blog's real name!). Tennessee FIDE Master Peter Bereolos likes to play a system with g2-g4 against the Dutch and there are a couple of his games somewhere in the archives.

In the Tregubov game I really would not have believed it was a 2500 behind the white pieces. 7. Nf3? is just so strange. 18. Rb1 is also just odd - 18. Re5 basically immediately won the c5 square if he really wanted it that badly. Neat game, but I think that no matter the opening, if you play poorly you will lose. Perhaps that is even more true in an opening like this where there is almost no theory to go on yet the position is sharp but subtle enough that apparently even a 2500 can blunder as early as the 7th move.

As another aside, I really don't like this Nc3 stuff. I think the knight could find a better home on d2 supporting a c4 thrust. Nc3 seems to only make sense if you plan an early e4, but so far as I've seen nobody has even tried that yet - although that's another interesting idea in its own right.

Oh well. Conversations like this are exactly why I suggested it. It's just a rich opening system that's full of possible ideas and basically completely unexplored. And this is all just in response to one idea from black. In my experience, black usually avoids immediately taking the pawn leading to an entirely different sort of position all together.

I only skimmed the responses, but I don't think anyone actually addressed this. The move 2. g3 does not set up 3. f4 (assuming you meant that). For one thing, the pawn on f4 doesn't need protection from g3 -- it's not attacked yet and e2-e3 is good for the job without adding more kingside weaknesses or slowing down the push to g4.

I'm not completely sure why the finahchetto works so well. Maybe it's because it gets the bishop on the long diagonal, controling the important e4 square, and hitting on b7/a8 (making it harder to develop the black LSB). Maybe it's because it leaves the pawn on e2 so it can make its break to e4 in one move. Maybe it actually makes the kingside harder to break down, despite that it moves a pawn over there.

So here comes a little essay...

The direct fianchetto 2.g3 came to be considered the best answer against the Dutch during the 1920's already. Most reasons for this are based on the hypermodern ideas of Nimzowitsch & Co. that nowadays are part of the strategy canon.

Let's have a look at the logic behind this. If we compare the Dutch to its mirror opening, the Sicilian, we see that in the Sicilian White is able to break up the center by means of d2-d4 very quickly, which allows White to obtain good development and space advantage.

In the Dutch, the thrust e2-e4 can only be achieved by sacrificing the pawn, so if White doesn't want to play a gambit, a more strategic setup is called for.

In the pre-hypermodern times, players would unanimously play roughly along the development plan c4, Nc3, e3 - if possible after Bf4 - and then develop the bishop to d3. They would then find that Black had increased his grip on e4 either by setting up a stonewall (d7-d5) or by means of Bb4(xc3), b6, Bb7 (there actually were some pre-hypermodern players who new about the fianchetto, like e.g. Bird or Staunton et al.). With e4 firmly under Black control, it is difficult to open the center, allowing Black to conduct the classical Dutch kingside mating attack (like Rf6-h6 etc.).

Now, the hypermodernists had very elaborate ideas about the center and pawn structure. In their view, the fianchetto against the Dutch accomplishes the following:

• By bringing the bishop to g2 quickly, Black is discouraged (or even hindered) to bring his bishop to b7.
• Since f5 is occupied by a black pawn, Black's light-squared bishop also doesn't have immediate perspectives on the c8-h3 diagonal. Note that the pawn on g3 also accomplishes what Nimzowitsch called "Hemmung" in German (I have googled a lot but haven't found the English term, sorry). This means, that the f5-pawn is restricted and therefore Black has to resort to long manoeuvers à la Bc8-d7-e8-h5 in order to bring the bishop into play.
• The hypermodernists also weren't fond of committing in the center too early. Their view of an early c4 was that it only allows Black to play Bb4 and strengthen the grip on e4. On the other hand, the Black king's bishop lacks a better square than e7 (or g7) if White develops his king side first.

The above list is of course pure strategy but to this day is the thinking behind the notion of 2.g3 as the best move against the Dutch. If you'd like to have poker analogies, we could say that:

• 2.g3 is the GTO line
• Early c4 against the Dutch is similar to reraising with crappy Aces from the BB in PLO.
• It's well possible to play the non GTO lines as long as your opponent lacks the skill to exploit you...

A quick note: nobody has mentioned the Leningrad Dutch (a typical position is reached after the moves 1. d4 f5 2. g3 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. 0-0 0-0 6. c4 d6 7. Nc3 Qe8) yet. It has some nice action-filled lines (unlike the stonewall ), I play it every now and then when I can't be bothered to play the same QGD for the umpteenth time.

The reason why you play 2.g3 is simple. With 1...f5 black blocked his light squared bishop, so the only reasonble place for it is on b7.

Delaying c4 makes sense when you want to play setups with Nc3 and e4 or c3 and Qb3 and against variations where black plays a stonewall with Nc6. Sometimes you simply delay c4 so that Nd2-c4 can be played - happens in certain variations of the Leningrad.