Dutch Defence
abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
b8 black knight
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
f8 black bishop
g8 black knight
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
d7 black pawn
e7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
f5 black pawn
d4 white pawn
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
e2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
e1 white king
f1 white bishop
g1 white knight
h1 white rook
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

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

1. d4 f5

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 to an extent (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, Miguel Najdorf, and Hikaru Nakamura[3] 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 defence 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.[4]

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.[5]

Theory

White most often fianchettoes the king's bishop with g3 and Bg2. Black also sometimes fianchettoes the king's bishop with ...g6 and ...Bg7 (the Leningrad Dutch), but may instead develop the 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 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 (GMs) 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.[6] 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[7] and Fabiano Caruana.[8]

Simon Williams is one of the leading practitioners of the classical Dutch[citation needed] and wrote more than one book on the opening.[9]

White continuations

abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
b8 black knight
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
f8 black rook
g8 black king
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
e7 black pawn
g7 black bishop
h7 black pawn
d6 black pawn
f6 black knight
g6 black pawn
f5 black pawn
c4 white pawn
d4 white pawn
f3 white knight
g3 white pawn
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
e2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white bishop
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
f1 white rook
g1 white king
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:

Other second moves

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

Black sometimes starts with the move order 1...e6 to avoid these lines, although Black must then be ready to play the French Defence if White continues 2.e4, rendering the Dutch no longer an option. The Staunton Gambit remains a good choice of opening for White in blitz tournaments where Black has little time to ponder the most accurate defense.

ECO

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

See also

References

  1. ^ See this trap for a dramatic example.
  2. ^ "Chess Opening Explorer". Retrieved 17 July 2017.
  3. ^ "Hikaru Nakamura playing the Dutch Defense as Black". www.chessgames.com.
  4. ^ 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 defence 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.)
  5. ^ Tarrasch, Siegbert (1987) [1934]. The Game of Chess. Courier Dover Publications. p. 348. ISBN 978-0-486-25447-0.
  6. ^ Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar (2010). Win with the Stonewall Dutch. Gambit. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-906454-07-4.
  7. ^ "Anand Hits The Wall". Retrieved 12 February 2018.
  8. ^ "Shamkir R3: Carlsen shows who's boss". Retrieved 12 February 2018.
  9. ^
  10. ^ "Howard Staunton vs. Bernard Horwitz, 3rd match game, London 1846". Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  11. ^ Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996) [First pub. 1992]. The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 393. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ 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. GM 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.
  14. ^ Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.
  15. ^ von der Lasa, T. (1859). Berliner Schach-Erinnerungen. Verlag von Veit & Co, Leipzig. pp. 79–80.
  16. ^ Bilguer, P. (1843). Handbuch des Schachspiels. Verlag von Veit & Co, Berlin. pp. 234–35, section 3, rows 4–6. ISBN 9785879246339.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ "Viktor Korchnoi vs. Hansjuerg Kaenel, Biel 1979". Chessgames.com.
  19. ^ Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. 144. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.

Further reading

External links

The Wikibook Chess Opening Theory has a page on the topic of: Dutch Defence
Chess
Categories