Dutch defence

[JustinHorton]

[

Two, this is a persistent myth among chess writers: the value of surprise. The value of putting your opponent in a position where she doesn't how to proceed. How often have you seen that in an opening book? "This will get your opponents out of theory." "This will force your opponents to think for themselves." "This will throw your opponents on their own resources."

Chess is a game of thought. Why on earth should forcing my opponent to think be a good idea?

Possibly because experience and common sense suggest that most players will produce worse moves once they are thrown on their own resources than when they are copying the previous moves of grandmasters.

This is not to disagree with your scepticism about the general value and use of "surprise". I think we can hardly over-emphasise, at club level, how much more important it is to be familiar with what's on the board than it is to think about surprising your opponent or worrying about their preparation.

[Chris Goodall]

Possibly because experience and common sense suggest that most players will produce worse moves once they are thrown on their own resources than when they are copying the previous moves of grandmasters.

Define "worse" though. Worse according to an engine, or more likely to result in losing the game? I could play 15 moves of top grandmaster theory in the Sicilian and then lose in spectacular fashion because I got move 16 wrong. Or I could play 10 moves of the Hippopotamus, make something up on moves 11-15, and reach a complex blocked position in which both sides are looking around for long-term plans.

[JustinHorton]

Possibly because experience and common sense suggest that most players will produce worse moves once they are thrown on their own resources than when they are copying the previous moves of grandmasters.

Define "worse" though. Worse according to an engine, or more likely to result in losing the game?

These are not separate circles on a Venn diagram

[NickFaulks]

most players will produce worse moves once they are thrown on their own resources than when they are copying the previous moves of grandmasters.

But will they? I find that the most annoying phase of the game is where you are torn between the move you want to play and the one which you have a recollection ( perhaps faulty ) that you are supposed to play. This leads at best to a waste of thinking time and often to some ungodly compromise. It is generally a relief when my opponent leads me into uncharted waters where for better or worse I have no choice but to think entirely for myself.

[Chris Goodall]

Define "worse" though. Worse according to an engine, or more likely to result in losing the game?

These are not separate circles on a Venn diagram

Correct. They are intersecting circles. Which circle did you mean?

[Roger de Coverly]

Worse according to an engine, or more likely to result in losing the game?

Engines are lethal in their assessments if there's a tactic to be found within their search depth. But in quiet positions especially where you ask the engine for a quick evaluation, I'd suspect they are basing it on the positional rules that have been programmed into them. These being determined in part by the programmers may not completely be devoid of bias. For example some engines down rate the positions arising from that old staple, the Kings Indian Attack.

Another danger is where the position looks dodgy but an engine gives it an all clear. That's likely based either on a hidden tactic several moves later or the engine's faith in its own ability to calculate lines that will keep it out of trouble.

There is always the risk of playing 15 moves of theory and an absolute howler on the 16th. It's not always tactical if your knowledge is superficial. Practical answers to this are perhaps not to play the most critical line or to just know the positions better.

[JustinHorton]

most players will produce worse moves once they are thrown on their own resources than when they are copying the previous moves of grandmasters.

But will they? I find that the most annoying phase of the game is where you are torn between the move you want to play and the one which you have a recollection ( perhaps faulty ) that you are supposed to play. This leads at best to a waste of thinking time and often to some ungodly compromise. It is generally a relief when my opponent leads me into uncharted waters where for better or worse I have no choice but to think entirely for myself.

Oh no doubt (and it's amazing how often we think we have remembered theory properly, but when we look it up later,we haven't) but I put it to you that the moves we produce for ourselves, once definitely out of book, are likely to be inferior to the ones we've copied off Kramnik.

[Roger de Coverly]

I find that the most annoying phase of the game is where you are torn between the move you want to play and the one which you have a recollection ( perhaps faulty ) that you are supposed to play.

If I've studied a position to the extent of knowing several lines of play, I sometimes struggle to recall which are the good moves and which are the bad ones. Rooks in particular can be a headache. You know as Black you want a Rook on e8, but which one? If you use the one on a8, that takes it out of white square risk down the h1-a8 diagonal. On the downside the f8 rook is then trapped and potentially vulnerable to an unopposed Bishop taking up residence on the a3 to f8 one. Are you likely to want to advance the f pawn? If so then keep the f8 rook at home.

[Robert Stokes]

Thank you for the replies. There is certainly enough there for me to think about.

Robert

[Roger de Coverly]

but I put it to you that the moves we produce for ourselves, once definitely out of book, are likely to be inferior to the ones we've copied off Kramnik.

There's a line in the Kings Indian where I've won a couple of convincing games, one against an IM. A stem lines is or was a Kramnik v Kasparov encounter. Whenever I've played it, I have to remind myself that although I have Kasparov on side, my opponent has Kramnik until they vary. In the game in question, Kramnik won after much hard fighting.

[Gary Senior]

As has been mentioned White has a couple of awkward lines against f5. - e4 and Ng5. To avoid these black can go e6 and then f5 next move. I think that’s the best move order but white may go 2 e4 nd then you need to go b6 or play the French. The simon Williams videos are really good and entertaining.

[MJMcCready]

A difficulty or two with the Dutch Defence is that your first move isn't a developing move and that it will weaken your kingside, which is where your king will most likely end up.

At club level I have always had good results with it but higher up the chain most players know how to play against the classical or stonewall Dutch.

Its a good defence as long as your opponent isnt too strong

[soheil_hooshdaran]

I don't agree that it's good only at the club level. I witnessed at least FM who played it in an open tournament, and top GMs have played it. I found two games in Mega database 2011 (I still use the old DB)

[NickFaulks]

Its a good defence as long as your opponent isnt too strong

Botvinnik played it against Capablanca, Bronstein and Reshevsky, among others.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Carlsen has played it too (notably getting a win against Anand with it)