The "Sneaky Dutch" 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 f5

[lucioperca]

** I thought this warranted a new thread since ..f5 is played after e3 here **

Hi,
I have recently been looking at some online resources that relate to the "Sneaky Dutch" [1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 f5].

Zuke 'Em redirects readers to Summerscale's Bg5 line in response to ..f5 (not possible in this line.)

The two main sources I found were mini-articles from Gary Lane (Opening Lanes, #s 56 & 94 - attached
  lane56.pdf (Size: 180.64 KB / Downloads: 7)
  lane94.pdf (Size: 145.06 KB / Downloads: 8) ).

As an alternative to simply laying down and giving into Black with 4. c4 and a regular stonewall Dutch, he suggests/reviews the following:

4. Bd3 Nf6 5. c4 c6 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. Ne5 0-0 8. b3 Nbd7 9. f4
4. Bd3 Nf6 5. c4 c6 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. Ne5 0-0 8. b3 Qe7 9. Bb2

With the idea that playing b3 will allow extra support for e5 or even a reverse "Bishop Killing" line with Ba3 since the B/d6 is such an important 'Dutch' piece.

He also comments on the accelerated 4. Ne5:

4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nd2 (with Ndf3 to follow)
4. Ne5 Nd7? 5. Qh5+

So my question really amounts to whether trying to stay C-Z'ish with Bd3 etc. is a good idea, or whether to accept that some other plan is required against an early ..f5 (that comes after e3).

Finally, has anyone had any quick wins with 4. Ne5...?

[Fromper]

I don't think a normal C-Z approach will work. That pawn on f5 kills the diagonal that the Bd3 wants to control.

Having played the Stonewall Dutch as black, I like the idea of the bishop killing line with Ba3. I usually play the Classical Dutch, but when I do play the Stonewall, being forced to trade away that dark squared bishop really hurts.

--Fromper

[Rudel]

(01-28-2010 01:51 AM)lucioperca Wrote:  ** I thought this warranted a new thread since ..f5 is played after e3 here **

Hi,
I have recently been looking at some online resources that relate to the "Sneaky Dutch" [1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 f5].

Hey lucioperca, thanks for compiling all this for us!

[Rudel]

(01-28-2010 01:51 AM)lucioperca Wrote:  ** I thought this warranted a new thread since ..f5 is played after e3 here **

Hi,
I have recently been looking at some online resources that relate to the "Sneaky Dutch" [1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 f5].

Zuke 'Em redirects readers to Summerscale's Bg5 line in response to ..f5 (not possible in this line.)

The two main sources I found were mini-articles from Gary Lane (Opening Lanes, #s 56 & 94 - attached ).

As an alternative to simply laying down and giving into Black with 4. c4 and a regular stonewall Dutch, he suggests/reviews the following:

4. Bd3 Nf6 5. c4 c6 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. Ne5 0-0 8. b3 Nbd7 9. f4
4. Bd3 Nf6 5. c4 c6 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. Ne5 0-0 8. b3 Qe7 9. Bb2

With the idea that playing b3 will allow extra support for e5 or even a reverse "Bishop Killing" line with Ba3 since the B/d6 is such an important 'Dutch' piece.

He also comments on the accelerated 4. Ne5:

4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nd2 (with Ndf3 to follow)
4. Ne5 Nd7? 5. Qh5+

So my question really amounts to whether trying to stay C-Z'ish with Bd3 etc. is a good idea, or whether to accept that some other plan is required against an early ..f5 (that comes after e3).

Finally, has anyone had any quick wins with 4. Ne5...?

Killing the Bishop has been chosen by some strong players, including Ivanchuk, Krammnik, and (on multiple occasions) Levon, including some games against equal players at strong tourneys.

Here is a mop-up by Ivanchuk

[Event "Memorial J.Capablanca (cat.15)"]
[Site "Habana (Cuba)"]
[Date "2007.05.19"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Ivanchuk Vassily (UKR)"]
[Black "Nogueiras Jesus (CUB)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2549"]
[ECO "A84"]
[WhiteElo "2787"]

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d4 c6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bd3 f5 6. O-O Nf6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2 O-O
9. Qc1 b6 10. Ba3 Bb7 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. Nc3 Nbd7 13. cxd5 Nxd5 14. Rd1 Rac8 15.
Bc4 N7f6 16. Qb2 Rfd8 17. h3 Nxc3 18. Qxc3 Ne4 19. Qb2 c5 20. dxc5 Qxd1+ 21.
Rxd1 Rxd1+ 22. Kh2 Rxc5 23. Bxe6+ Kf8 24. Bc4 b5 25. Be2 Rd6 26. Nd4 b4 27. Bc4
Bd5 28. Nxf5 Rf6 29. Qe5 1-0

The most competitive, high-level game I could find (by which I mean that White was not a stronger player but won using this method) is:
[Event "It (cat.16)"]
[Site "Biel (Switzerland)"]
[Date "2001.01.01"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Korchnoi Viktor (SUI)"]
[Black "Grischuk Alexander (RUS)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2666"]
[ECO "A84"]
[WhiteElo "2639"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. e3 f5 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. O-O Bd6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2 b6
9. Qc1 Bb7 10. Ba3 Nbd7 11. cxd5 cxd5 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. Nc3 a6 14. Qb2 O-O 15.
b4 Rac8 16. a4 Ne4 17. Ne2 Qe7 18. Rfc1 Nd6 19. b5 a5 20. Qa3 Rxc1+ 21. Rxc1
Rc8 22. Rxc8+ Nxc8 23. Qc3 Qd6 24. Nf4 Ne7 25. h4 Nf8 26. h5 Bc8 27. Ne5 Bd7
28. f3 Be8 29. g4 g5 30. Ne2 Nd7 31. Kg2 h6 32. Ng3 fxg4 33. fxg4 Nxe5 34. dxe5
Qc5 35. Qd2 Qc7 36. Qb2 Kg7 37. Ne2 Kg8 38. Kf2 Bf7 39. Qd4 Kg7 40. Qc3 Qb8 41.
Nd4 Qd8 42. Ke2 Bg8 43. Bb1 Kh8 44. Qa3 Nc8 45. Bg6 Kg7 46. Bb1 Kh8 47. Qc1 Ne7
48. Qf1 Nc8 49. Nc6 1-0

An interesting upset using the b3-setup but without killing the Bishop:
[Event "Ch Europe"]
[Site "Istanbul (Turkey)"]
[Date "2003.01.01"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Sargissian Gabriel (ARM)"]
[Black "Tregubov Pavel V (RUS)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2629"]
[ECO "A84"]
[WhiteElo "2611"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bd3 f5 6. O-O Nf6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2 b6
9. Ne5 Bb7 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. Bb5+ Nbd7 12. Bxd7+ Nxd7 13. Qh5+ g6 14. Nxg6 Nf6
15. Qh3 hxg6 16. Qxh8+ Kf7 17. Qh3 g5 18. a4 Qd7 19. Ba3 Ne4 20. Bxd6 Qxd6 21.
Qf3 Rh8 22. h3 Ba6 23. Re1 Kf6 24. Ra2 Qb4 25. Rc1 Qxb3 26. Rac2 Bd3 27. Nd2
Qa3 28. Rc7 Bc4 29. Nxe4+ dxe4 30. Qd1 Bd5 31. Rxa7 Qd3 32. Qc2 1-0

[Rudel]

Question:

Is there a good reason why this approach cannot be used against 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5?

It won't work against 1.d4 f5 since Black could angle for a Leningrad, but 2.Bg5 is a fine response then.

[Fromper]

By "this approach", I'm assuming you mean Ba3 to trade the bishops? It's a good plan if black plays the Stonewall Dutch, but not the Classical or Leningrad. Really, given the content of this thread, it should be called the "Sneaky Stonewall", since that's the only version of the Dutch being discussed here so far.

But if black plays 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5, then later plays d6 instead of d5, then it's a Classical Dutch instead of a Stonewall. The point is that black wants to keep the center fluid. He's usually shooting to push e5 later, freeing his c8 bishop to hold up the f5 pawn and aid in a king side attack.

This is actually what I play as black - "e6 against everything", leading to either the French or Classical Dutch, depending on white's play. I think there are lines of the Dutch where black's better off switching to the Stonewall instead of insisting on the Classical variation, but I'm not good enough yet to know when that is. I end up just losing those games as black.

[lucioperca]

So my question really amounts to whether trying to stay C-Z'ish with Bd3 etc. is a good idea, or whether to accept that some other plan is required against an early ..f5 (that comes after e3).

Finally, has anyone had any quick wins with 4. Ne5...?
[/quote]

Killing the Bishop has been chosen by some strong players, including Ivanchuk, Krammnik, and (on multiple occasions) Levon, including some games against equal players at strong tourneys.

Hi David,
Thanks, these are interesting games. They are a good illustration of activating the reverse Bishop-Killing idea after Black has played ..f5 a bit later in the opening.

I take it that no news on an accelerated Ne5 is bad news!

---

(01-29-2010 04:36 AM)Rudel Wrote:  Question:

Is there a good reason why this approach cannot be used against 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5?

It won't work against 1.d4 f5 since Black could angle for a Leningrad, but 2.Bg5 is a fine response then.

Hi,
I think this approach is certainly viable by using a waiting approach.

If during the initial opening moves Black occupies d6 with anything but the Bishop, play Bb2 to bolster e5; if ..Bd6, proceed with the Ba3 idea.

I guess the question is does White have enough 'other' moves that can be played before moving B/b1 than Black does with respect to d6 use? (off the top of my head, I would think "yes, White does").

[Rudel]

I couldn't find any quick wins with Ne5 against decently-rated players.

[Rookpawn]

(01-28-2010 02:38 AM)Fromper Wrote:  I don't think a normal C-Z approach will work. That pawn on f5 kills the diagonal that the Bd3 wants to control.

Having played the Stonewall Dutch as black, I like the idea of the bishop killing line with Ba3. I usually play the Classical Dutch, but when I do play the Stonewall, being forced to trade away that dark squared bishop really hurts.

--Fromper

In the Stonewall Dutch, the Qe7, Bd6 battery is very common to discourage Ba3.

[Rookpawn]

The "Sneaky Dutch" 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 f5

A few comments on the Dutch for the Colle player.

3.e3 systems against the Dutch are played rather frequently but don't really frighten the dedicated Dutch Stonewall player. One of the most consistent move orders that the CZ player can relate to is the b2-b3 and Bb2 lines. Its both solid, has familiar moves. A game to look up along these lines is Speelman - Seriwan, St John 1988. (Reviewed by Aagaard in "Dutch Stonewall")

[Event "Candidates m6"]
[Site "Saint John"]
[White "Speelman, Jonathan S"]
[Black "Seirawan, Yasser"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A84"]
[WhiteElo "2625"]
[BlackElo "2595"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c6 3. c4 e6 4. e3 f5 5. Be2 Nf6 6. O-O Bd6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2
Nbd7 9. Ne5 O-O 10. Nd2 g5 11. f4 gxf4 12. exf4 Ne4 13. Nxe4 fxe4 14. Qd2 Nf6
15. c5 Bc7 16. b4 Bd7 17. a4 Ne8 18. Ra3 Ng7 19. Rh3 Be8 20. Bc3 Bg6 21. g4
Bxe5 22. dxe5 h5 23. f5 exf5 24. gxh5 e3 25. Qxe3 f4 26. Rxf4 Be4 27. e6 Nf5
28. Rxf5 Rxf5 29. Qh6 Rg5+ 30. Rg3 Rxg3+ 31. hxg3 Qh7 32. Qf6 Re8 33. Be5 Re7
34. Qg5+ Kf8 35. Bd6 1-0

Aagaards comments after the 10.Nd2 "White has an edge as Black has no easy way to develop his Queenside. ..... White can claim a small advantage, but certainly no more."

My comments: Note that 7... Qe7 prevented the play of Whites QB to a3 and exchanging off the dark squared Bishop. (Standard stuff in the stonewall setup.)


Bd3 by white is not "bad" and covers the e4 square. Especially if white is paitent and awaits developments. So if black waits until e3 and Bd3 are played before f5 is thrown in there is no need to panic.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c6 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.O-O f5 6.b3 Qe7 7.Bb2 Nf6 8.Ne5 O-O 9.c4 etc.


An idea of whites King going to the Queenside could be a possibility also because of Blacks slower Queenside play. (??) Just a thought....

In conclusion: The e3 lines against the Dutch aren't anything to panic over and White has plenty of play on the Queenside. I am a Dutch Stonewall player so Im not going to giveup all my secrets. But there is plenty of room for improvements and solid play on both sides in my opinion.