Dutch Defence

The Dutch Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:

1. d4 f5
Dutch Defense
abcdefgh
8
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves1.d4 f5
ECOA80–A99
Named afterElias Stein, Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs, avec des réflexions militaires relatives à ce jeu, 1789
ParentQueen's Pawn Game

Black's 1...f5 stakes a claim to the e4-square and envisions an attack in the middlegame on White's kingside; however, it also weakens Black's kingside some (especially the e8–h5 diagonal).[1] Like its 1.e4 counterpart, the Sicilian Defence, the Dutch is an aggressive and unbalancing opening, resulting in the lowest percentage of draws among the most common replies to 1.d4.[2] Historically, White has tried many methods to exploit the kingside weaknesses, such as the Staunton Gambit (2.e4) and Korchnoi Attack (2.h3 and 3.g4).

The Dutch has never been a main line against 1.d4 and is rarely seen today in high-level competition, although a number of top players, including Alexander Alekhine, Bent Larsen, Paul Morphy and Miguel Najdorf, have used it with success. Its most notable use may have been in 1951, when both World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik and his challenger, David Bronstein, played it in their 1951 World Championship match.

History

Elias Stein (1748–1812), an Alsatian who settled in The Hague, recommended the defense as the best reply to 1.d4 in his 1789 book Nouvel essai sur le Jeu des échecs, avec des réflexions militaires relatives à ce jeu.[3]

Siegbert Tarrasch rejected the opening as unsound in his 1931 work The Game of Chess, arguing that White should reply with the Staunton Gambit, with White being better after 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.f3! exf3.[4]

Theory

White most often fianchettoes his king's bishop with g3 and Bg2. Black also sometimes fianchettoes his king's bishop with ...g6 and ...Bg7 (the Leningrad Dutch), but may instead develop his bishop to e7, d6 (after ...d5), or b4 (the latter is most often seen if White plays c4 before castling). Play often runs 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 (4.Nh3!? is also possible, intending Nf4–d3 to control the e5-square if Black plays the Stonewall Variation) 4...Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 and now Black chooses between 6...d5 (the characteristic move of the Stonewall), 6...d6, the Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation (less popular today), or Alekhine's move 6...Ne4!? retaining the option of moving the d-pawn either one or two squares.

The opening's attacking potential is shown in the Polish Immortal, in which Miguel Najdorf, using the Stonewall Variation, sacrificed all of his minor pieces to win by checkmate.

Practitioners

The Stonewall Dutch enjoyed a resurgence of interest in the 1980s and 1990s, when leading grandmasters Artur Yusupov, Sergey Dolmatov, Nigel Short and Simen Agdestein helped develop the system where Black plays an earlier ...d5 and places his dark-squared bishop on d6.[5] Termed the Modern Stonewall, this setup has remained more popular than the traditional early ...Be7.

Magnus Carlsen has used the Stonewall to score wins against Viswanathan Anand[6] and Fabiano Caruana.[7]

The Ginger GM, Simon Williams, is one of the leading practitioners of the classical Dutch and has created several courses on it as well as having written more than one book on the opening.

White continuations
abcdefgh
8
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6

The traditional move order involves White playing 2.c4. More commonly, White will start with 2.g3. Some common variations are: c4 is played after g3 and Bg2; c4 is played after Nf3; and c4 is played after 0-0.

Examples:

  • traditional: 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6
  • common: 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 (see diagram)

Other second moves

White has various more aggressive alternatives to the standard moves, including

  • 2.Nc3 Nf6 (or 2...d5) 3.Bg5;
  • 2.Bg5;
  • 2.e4!?, the Staunton Gambit, named after Howard Staunton, who introduced it in his match against Bernhard Horwitz.[8][9] The Staunton Gambit was once a feared attacking line,[10] but it has been out of favour for over 80 years.[11] Grandmaster Larry Christiansen and International Master Jeremy Silman have opined that it "offers White equality at best."[12]
  • Carl Mayet introduced a completely different gambit approach to the Dutch in 1839 against von der Lasa, playing 2.h3 followed by 3.g4.[13] Von der Lasa later published analysis of this line in the first edition of the Handbuch des Schachspiels.[14][15] Viktor Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, reintroduced the line into tournament practice in Korchnoi–Känel, Biel 1979.[16] GM Christiansen later concluded, as von der Lasa and Staunton had done over 140 years earlier, that Black could get a good game by declining the gambit with 2...Nf6 3.g4 d5![17]

Black sometimes starts with the move-order 1...e6 to avoid these lines, although Black must then be ready to play the French Defense if White continues 2.e4, rendering the Dutch no longer an option.

ECO

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has twenty codes for the Dutch Defence, A80 through A99.

  • A80: 1.d4 f5
  • A81: 1.d4 f5 2.g3
  • A82: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 (Staunton Gambit)
  • A83: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (Staunton Gambit)
  • A84: 1.d4 f5 2.c4
  • A85: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 (Rubinstein Variation)
  • A86: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3
  • A87: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 (Leningrad Dutch)
  • A88: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 c6 (Leningrad Dutch)
  • A89: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 (Leningrad Dutch)
  • A90: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2
  • A91: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7
  • A92: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
  • A93: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.b3 (Botvinnik Variation)
  • A94: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.b3 c6 8.Ba3 (Stonewall)
  • A95: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.Nc3 c6 (Stonewall)
  • A96: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6
  • A97: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 (Ilyin–Genevsky Variation)
  • A98: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qc2 (Ilyin–Genevsky Variation)
  • A99: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 (Ilyin–Genevsky Variation)

See also

References
  1. See this trap for a dramatic example.
  2. "Chess Opening Explorer". Retrieved 17 July 2017.
  3. Stein, Elias (1789). Nouvel Essai sur le Jeu des Échecs: avec des Reflexions Militaires Relatives à ce Jeu [New Essay on the Game of Chess, with Military Reflections Regarding This Game] (in French). La Haye, France: (Self-published). pp. 114–115. The Dutch defense is presented on p. 114: "Dix-huitieme Partie. Celui qui n'a pas la Trait ne veut pas recevoir le Gambit de la Dame. 1. B. Le P. de la D. 2 pas. N. Le P. du F. du R. 2 pas (a). 2. B. Le P. du F. de la D. 2 pas. N. Le C. du R. à la 3me case de son F." (18th Game. He who does not have the Treatise does not want to get the Queen's Gambit. 1. White: the Queen's pawn advances 2 squares ; Black: the King's bishop pawn advances 2 squares (a) 2. White: the Queen's bishop pawn advances 2 squares ; Black: The King's knight advances to the third square, in front of his [i.e., the King's] bishop.) From p. 115: "(a) On a déja vu que, quand on ne veut pas recevoir le Gambit du Roi, on doit pousser, au second coup, le pion de la Dame deux pas. De même vous devez observer que, lorsque votre adversaire commence par débuter au premier coup en poussant son pion de la Dame, deux pas, vous ne pouvez mieux faire que de pousser le pion du Fou du Roi deux pas." ( (a) One has already seen that when one does not want to get the King's Gambit, one should push, on the second move, the Queen's pawn two squares. Likewise, you should note that when your opponent begins on the first move by pushing his Queen's pawn two squares, you cannot do better than to push your King's bishop pawn two squares.)
  4. Tarrasch, Siegbert (1987) [1934]. The Game of Chess. Courier Dover Publications. p. 348. ISBN 978-0-486-25447-0.
  5. Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar (2010). Win with the Stonewall Dutch. Gambit. p. 6. ISBN 1-906454-07-8.
  6. "Anand Hits The Wall". Retrieved 12 February 2018.
  7. "Shamkir R3: Carlsen shows who's boss". Retrieved 12 February 2018.
  8. "Howard Staunton vs Bernard Horwitz, 3rd match game, London 1846". Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  9. Hooper, D.; Whyld, K. (1992). The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. p. 393. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
  10. In 1939, Fine wrote that, "The Staunton Gambit ... offers White considerable attacking chances." Fine, R.; Griffith, R.C.; White, J.H. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. 176. In 1964, Horowitz wrote that the Staunton Gambit gives White "sharp attacking chances for his Pawn" and places the opponent at a psychological disadvantage by requiring Black to renounce his aggressive intentions and "resign himself to an accurate and stubborn defense".Horowitz, I.A. (1964). Chess Openings: Theory and Practice. Simon and Schuster. p. 611. More recent writers have observed that fear of the Staunton Gambit has discouraged many players from using the Dutch. Yet many have used it anyway Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.; Schiller, E.; Bill Colias (1993). How to Play Black Against the Staunton Gambit. Chess Digest. p. 4. ISBN 0-87568-236-7.
  11. In 1925, the editors of the Fourth Edition of Modern Chess Openings (MCO-4) wrote that the Staunton Gambit "has fallen out of favour for no clear reason". Griffith, R.C.; White, J.H. and M.E. Goldstein (1925). Modern Chess Openings, 4th edition. Whitehead & Miller. p. 120. In 1939, Fine wrote in MCO-6, "The Staunton Gambit fell out of favour some time ago and still remains so ... ." Fine, R.; Griffith, R.C.; White, J.H. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. 176. Grandmaster Nick de Firmian writes in MCO-15 (2008) that the Staunton Gambit "is not in much favor today". de Firmian, N. (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition. Random House. p. 494. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7.
  12. Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.
  13. von der Lasa, T. (1859). Berliner Schach-Erinnerungen. Verlag von Veit & Co, Leipzig. pp. 79–80.
  14. Bilguer, P. (1843). Handbuch des Schachspiels. Verlag von Veit & Co, Berlin. pp. 234–35, section 3, rows 4–6.
  15. Alan L. Watson (1995). The Anti-Dutch Spike: g4! in the Krejcik, Korchnoi, and Alapin Variations. Blackmar Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-9619606-2-0.
  16. Korchnoi–Känel, Biel 1979
  17. Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. 144. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.

Further reading
  • Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Oxford Companion To Chess. Oxford University. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
  • Aagaard, Jacob (2001). Dutch Stonewall. Everyman Chess. ISBN 9781857442526.
  • Pinski, Jan (2002). Classical Dutch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-307-1.
  • Williams, Simon (2003). Play The Classical Dutch. Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-88-3.
  • McDonald, Neil (2004). Starting out: The Dutch Defence. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-857443-77-2.
  • Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar; Agdestein, Simen (2009). Win With the Stonewall Dutch. Gambit. ISBN 1-906454-07-8.
  • Williams, Simon; Palliser, Richard; Vigus, James (2010). Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-624-1.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.