Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Dutch Defence.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Dutch Defence
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Moves | 1.d4 f5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECO | A80–A99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Named after | Elias Stein, Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs, avec des réflexions militaires relatives à ce jeu, 1789 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Parent | Queen's Pawn Game | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dutch Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
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 some extent, especially on 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, Simon Williams, 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
[edit]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]
Practitioners
[edit]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] This setup, termed the Modern Stonewall, 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 and wrote more than one book on the opening.[9]
Theory
[edit]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) 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.
Main variations
[edit]There are many variations and lines, but the following three are considered part of the main theory of the Dutch Defence.
Leningrad Variation
[edit]| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |              | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Leningrad Variation after: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
In the Leningrad Variation of the Dutch Defence, Black fianchettos the dark-squared bishop. From g7, this bishop will not only be a good defender of the king, but also an active piece on the long diagonal.
The game may proceed 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Nf3 d6 7.0-0 Qe8. The g2-bishop helps protect White's king against Black's possible kingside aggression, and this bishop would possibly be blunted by the f5-pawn if it were instead to develop to d3.
The opening code for the Leningrad Variation in the Dutch Defence is A87 to A89 in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) classification system:
- A87: Leningrad System
- A88: Leningrad System with ...d6 and ...c6
- A89: Leningrad System with ...d6 and ...Nc6
Stonewall Variation
[edit]| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Stonewall Variation after: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.c4 c6
In the Stonewall Dutch, Black plays ...d5 in the opening and secures a tight grip of the e4-square. A possible example is 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.c4 c6.
The ECO codes for the Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defence are A90 to A92:
- A90: Stonewall Variation
- A91: Stonewall Variation with Nc3
- A92: Stonewall Variation with c4 and Nc3
Staunton Gambit
[edit]An aggressive attempt by White to sacrifice a pawn with 2.e4!? in exchange for rapid development and attacking chances against Black's Dutch setup. Named after Howard Staunton, who introduced it in his match against Bernhard Horwitz.[10][11] The Staunton Gambit was once a feared attacking line,[12] but it has been out of favour for over 80 years.[13] GM Larry Christiansen and International Master Jeremy Silman have opined that it "offers White equality at best".[14]
The ECO code for the Staunton Gambit in the Dutch Defence is A83.
White continuations
[edit]| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
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 (diagram)
Other second moves
[edit]White has various more aggressive alternatives to the standard moves, including:
- 2.Nc3 Nf6 (or 2...d5) 3.Bg5, the Raphael Variation
- 2.Bg5, the Hopton Attack; e.g. 2...Nf6 (2...g6 is the most popular move) 3.Bxf6 exf6 4.e3 or e4
- 2.Bf4 or 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4, the London System
- 2.g4, the Krejcik Gambit
- 2.e4!?, the Staunton Gambit
- 2.h3 followed by 3.g4, Carl Mayet introduced this completely different gambit approach to the Dutch in 1839 against von der Lasa.[15] Von der Lasa later published analysis of this line in the first edition of the Handbuch des Schachspiels.[16][17] Viktor Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, reintroduced the line into tournament practice in Korchnoi–Känel, Biel 1979.[18] 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![19]
- 2.Qd3, the Alapin Variation
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 defence.
ECO
[edit]The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has twenty codes for the Dutch Defence, A80 through A99.
- A80: 1.d4 f5
- A81: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 (Fianchetto Attack)
- 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 (Fianchetto Variation)
- 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, Warsaw Variation)
- 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, Matulovich)
- A90: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 (Classical Variation)
- 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
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ See this trap for a dramatic example.
- ^ "Chess Opening Explorer". Retrieved 17 July 2017.
- ^ "Hikaru Nakamura playing the Dutch Defense as Black". www.chessgames.com.
- ^ 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.)
- ^ Tarrasch, Siegbert (1987) [1934]. The Game of Chess. Courier Dover Publications. p. 348. ISBN 978-0-486-25447-0.
- ^ Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar (2010). Win with the Stonewall Dutch. Gambit. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-906454-07-4.
- ^ "Anand Hits The Wall". Retrieved 12 February 2018.
- ^ "Shamkir R3: Carlsen shows who's boss". Retrieved 12 February 2018.
- ^
- Williams, Simon (2003). Play The Classical Dutch. Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-88-3.
- Palliser, Richard; Williams, Simon; Vigus, James (2010). Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-624-1.
- Williams, Simon (2013). Killer Dutch - The Book. GingerGM and EPlus Books. ISBN 978-1-927179-15-4.
- Williams, Simon (2015). The Killer Dutch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 9781781942420.
- ^ "Howard Staunton vs. Bernard Horwitz, 3rd match game, London 1846". Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.
- ^ von der Lasa, T. (1859). Berliner Schach-Erinnerungen. Verlag von Veit & Co, Leipzig. pp. 79–80.
- ^ Bilguer, P. (1843). Handbuch des Schachspiels. Verlag von Veit & Co, Berlin. pp. 234–35, section 3, rows 4–6. ISBN 9785879246339.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - ^ 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.
- ^ "Viktor Korchnoi vs. Hansjuerg Kaenel, Biel 1979". Chessgames.com.
- ^ Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. 144. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.
Further reading
[edit]- 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 978-1-906454-07-4.
- Williams, Simon; Palliser, Richard; Vigus, James (2010). Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-624-1.
External links
[edit]
The Wikibook Chess Opening Theory has a page on the topic of: Dutch Defence
- Learning the Dutch Defense
- Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs 1789 (Internet Archive)
- Dutch Defense for Beginners
| Outline | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | |||||||||
| History |
| ||||||||
| Rules | |||||||||
| Terms | |||||||||
| Tactics | |||||||||
| Strategy | |||||||||
| Openings |
| ||||||||
| Endgames | |||||||||
| Tournaments |
| ||||||||
| Art and media | |||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
Dutch Defence
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Overview
Moves and Classification
The Dutch Defence is a chess opening in which Black responds to White's 1.d4 with 1...f5, advancing the f-pawn to challenge the center and stake a claim on the e4 square early in the game. This move establishes a pawn structure that mimics a reverse fianchetto on the kingside, supporting potential attacks along the f-file while restricting White's knight development to e2 or f3; it promotes aggressive kingside play for Black, often at the expense of some central stability.[1][2] The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) categorizes the Dutch Defence under codes A80–A99, a range dedicated to 1.d4 f5 lines and their branches. Key subcodes include A80 for the baseline 1.d4 f5 without specific White replies; A82–A83 for the Staunton Gambit arising after 2.e4 (with A82 covering acceptance via 2...fxe4); A84 for 2.c4 setups; A85–A86 for early e6 or g6 structures after 2.c4; A87–A89 for the Leningrad Variation, featuring g6 fianchetto and dynamic central breaks; and A90–A99 for the Stonewall and Classical Variations, typically involving e6, d5, and c6 to form a restrictive pawn chain.[3] This opening frequently transposes from other systems, such as the English Opening through sequences like 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 f5 3.d4, which align Black's pawns into standard Dutch configurations without altering the core structure.[4] The Dutch shares conceptual overlaps with the King's Indian Defence (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6), both emphasizing hypermodern development and kingside assaults, but the Dutch's premature f5 advance introduces greater imbalance by opening the f-file for rooks while exposing potential weaknesses on e5 and g4. By contrast, it diverges from the French Defence (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5), a low-symmetry response to 1.e4 that prioritizes a solid pawn center over immediate flank aggression, resulting in more closed positions rather than the Dutch's open kingside tensions.[1]Strategic Ideas
The Dutch Defence is characterized by Black's early ...f5 push, which stakes a claim on the center while preparing aggressive kingside operations, often at the expense of central stability. Black typically aims to create dynamic imbalances, conceding space in the center to White in exchange for attacking chances against the white kingside. This approach suits players who favor sharp, tactical play over symmetrical development.[1] Black's primary strategic plans revolve around a kingside initiative, frequently involving the advance ...g5 followed by ...g4 to dismantle White's pawn cover and open lines for attack, particularly after castling kingside. The fianchettoed bishop on g7 plays a pivotal role in the Leningrad setup, exerting pressure on the e5 square to restrict White's central expansion and support the kingside pawn storm. For queenside counterplay, Black often employs ...b6 followed by ...c5 to challenge White's d4 pawn and generate activity, preventing White from overextending on that flank.[5][1] White's counter-strategies emphasize central dominance, typically through the e4 advance to seize space and undermine Black's f5 pawn, which becomes a chronic weakness vulnerable to breaks or knight outposts. Common maneuvers include knight rerouting to e5 to exploit the hole created by ...f5, or pawn breaks like d5 in certain lines to fracture Black's structure. By maintaining control over e4 and e5, White can transition to queenside expansion or redirect forces against Black's potentially exposed king.[5][1] Key pawn structures in the Dutch include the Leningrad fianchetto, where Black's pawns on f5 and g6 form a flexible kingside chain, often paired with ...d6 and ...e5 for central counterplay, allowing dynamic piece coordination but risking overextension if White strikes first in the center. In contrast, the Stonewall structure features a rigid d5-e6-f5 pawn chain (sometimes supported by ...c6), granting Black control over light squares and e4 but creating enduring weaknesses on dark squares like e5, where White can establish a strong outpost. A typical Leningrad setup might arise after 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6, with Black eyeing ...e5 and ...g5. The Stonewall often follows 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 c6, locking the center while Black maneuvers for kingside pressure.[1][6] These structures engender characteristic imbalances: Black enjoys a space advantage on the kingside, fueling rapid attacks, but White holds superior central control and greater activity for the light-squared bishop, which can target Black's queenside or f5 pawn. In the Stonewall, Black's light-squared bishop may become hemmed in, contrasting with White's potential for harmonious development, while the Leningrad offers Black more flexibility at the cost of potential kingside vulnerabilities if the fianchetto is challenged.[6][1]History
Origins and Early Development
The Dutch Defence, characterized by the moves 1.d4 f5, emerged in the late 18th century as an aggressive response to White's Queen's Pawn opening. It was first systematically recommended by the Dutch chess master Elias Stein in his 1789 book Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs, avec des réflexions militaires relatives à ce jeu, where he advocated 1...f5 as the strongest reply to 1.d4, aiming to seize control of the e4-square and provoke imbalances early.[7] Stein, born in Lorraine but settled in The Hague, reflected the bold, attacking style prevalent in Dutch chess circles around 1800, influenced by the Netherlands' vibrant intellectual and gaming culture during the post-Enlightenment period.[8] Early recorded uses of the Dutch appeared sporadically in the early 19th century, aligning with the romantic era's emphasis on dynamic, sacrificial play over positional restraint. One of the earliest documented instances occurred in 1846, when Bernhard Horwitz employed 1...f5 against Howard Staunton's Queen's Pawn Opening (1.d4), leading to sharp complications that highlighted the opening's counterattacking potential.[9] This approach gained traction in international play during the mid-19th century.[10] The opening's adoption suited the romantic style, allowing Black to unbalance the position and seek tactical opportunities, much like contemporaneous gambits in other lines. Theoretical contributions began to solidify the Dutch's foundations in the 1840s and 1850s through key publications and analyses. Paul Rudolf von Bilguer's influential Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843), a comprehensive treatise on openings, included early examinations of 1.d4 f5 variations, emphasizing its gambit-like aggression and potential for Black's initiative.[10] By the late 1850s, players like Paul Morphy adopted the Dutch in high-profile matches, such as his 1858 encounter with Daniel Harrwitz, where Morphy as Black used it to counter 1.d4 effectively, showcasing its viability in romantic-era combat through rapid piece activity and pawn storms.[10] Johann Löwenthal, active in London chess circles, contributed analyses of such games in periodicals like the Chess Player's Chronicle, underscoring the opening's role in fostering unbalanced middlegames.[10] These works laid the groundwork for the Dutch's recognition as a provocative alternative in 19th-century theory, though it remained a minority choice compared to more classical defenses.Evolution in Modern Chess
The Dutch Defence experienced a notable revival in the early 20th century, particularly during the 1920s, when prominent players such as Alexander Alekhine employed it successfully in tournament play, including a famous victory in 1922.[10] Mikhail Botvinnik also adopted the opening as part of his repertoire, contributing to its growing prominence among elite Soviet players in the interwar period and beyond. The Dutch gained significant prominence during the 1951 World Chess Championship match between Mikhail Botvinnik and David Bronstein, where both employed it in several games. This adoption aligned with the hypermodern ideas influencing chess theory at the time, emphasizing flank control over immediate central occupation, similar to developments in the Nimzowitsch Defence. Post-World War II, the Dutch Defence reached peak popularity within Soviet chess circles, bolstered by Botvinnik's influence as a world champion and architect of the Soviet school of chess.[10] The opening's aggressive, unbalanced nature suited the dynamic style promoted in Soviet training programs, with variations like the Leningrad gaining traction among grandmasters in the 1950s and 1960s. However, by the 1970s, its usage declined at the highest levels amid the rising dominance of 1.e4 openings such as the Sicilian Defence, which offered Black more flexible counterplay against White's central push. The advent of chess engines in the 1990s began validating specific Dutch lines by demonstrating their resilience in complex middlegame positions, paving the way for a partial resurgence.[10] In the 21st century, modern theory has evolved through games by top players, including Magnus Carlsen's employment of the Stonewall Variation in elite events such as the 2017 Tata Steel tournament, where he secured a win against Pavel Eljanov.[11] Traditional lines like the pure Stonewall have been refined or sidestepped due to White's improved handling, shifting focus toward more dynamic setups. Database statistics from master-level games indicate Black achieves win rates of approximately 25-36% in the Dutch overall, with higher draw percentages reflecting its combative equality at elite levels.[12] Post-2020 engine evaluations, such as those from Stockfish, affirm the Leningrad Variation as the soundest option, often assessing main lines as roughly equal (around +0.3 to +0.5 for White) while highlighting Black's counterattacking potential in imbalanced structures.[13]Theory
Key Positional Concepts
The Dutch Defence invites debates on its soundness due to the early ...f5 advance, which weakens Black's kingside and exposes the monarch to potential attacks along the f-file, yet it simultaneously grants Black dynamic attacking prospects by challenging White's center and e4-square control. Modern engine evaluations, such as those from the latest Stockfish development version (as of November 2025), typically assess main lines as favoring White with an advantage of around +0.6 to +0.8, reflecting Black's structural concessions but underscoring the opening's viability for players seeking imbalance over equality.[14] This tension arises because White can often secure a solid setup, but Black's aggressive pawn breaks can lead to sharp middlegames where compensation for the slight disadvantage is feasible.[1] In the middlegame, key themes revolve around the bishop pair's value versus the impaired light-squared bishop for Black, particularly in Stonewall structures where the c8-bishop is hemmed in by Black's own pawns on d5, e6, and f5, rendering it ineffective on light squares. White frequently exploits this by maneuvering a bishop to a3 to exchange Black's f8-bishop, securing the pair and enhancing long-term control, while Black counters by rerouting the light-squared bishop via d7-e8-h5 to activate it. Break timings are crucial: Black often times ...e5 to advance the kingside pawn majority, gaining space and initiative, whereas White may respond with dxc4 or c4 to undermine Black's center and open lines for counterplay. These motifs emphasize Black's need for precise timing to avoid passive positions.[15] Endgame implications in Dutch structures often favor Black if transitions lead to isolated pawns for White, such as an isolated d-pawn after central exchanges, allowing Black to blockade and target weaknesses while leveraging the open files. Conversely, Black's enduring kingside vulnerabilities, including the weakened dark squares and potential for an isolated e-pawn in some lines, can prove costly if the game simplifies prematurely. Favorable isolated queen's pawn (IQP) positions for Black arise less commonly but can emerge from aggressive ...e5 breaks, providing dynamic chances in rook endgames where activity compensates for structural flaws.[1] Recent AI insights, particularly from post-2020 engine tournaments like TCEC, highlight the robustness of lines such as 2.g3 against the Dutch, where engines like Leela Chess Zero and Stockfish evaluate positions as balanced and "completely respectable" even in suboptimal Black responses like 2...g6. In such fianchetto setups, AI play demonstrates White's ability to neutralize Black's kingside ambitions through solid development, often resulting in draws at elite computational levels, though human practitioners must navigate the resulting closed centers carefully to avoid overextension.[16]Common White Responses
After 1.d4 f5, White's most common second move is 2.c4, which stakes a claim in the center by challenging Black's control of e4 and preparing queenside expansion with moves like b3 and Bb2.[1] This approach often leads to the main lines of the Dutch, with typical follow-ups including 3.g3 to fianchetto the king's bishop or 3.Nc3 for rapid development and potential e4 advances, aiming to restrict Black's kingside play while building pressure on the queenside.[1] The move 2.g3 constitutes a flexible fianchetto setup that directly contests Black's kingside space by preparing Bg2 to target the e4 square and support a queenside pawn storm.[1] It allows White to develop harmoniously with Nf3, O-O, and c4, often transposing into Leningrad or Stonewall structures while maintaining options for central breaks like e4.[1] This response is popular among players seeking dynamic positions with long-term queenside attacking chances. 2.Nf3 serves as a solid developing move that avoids early pawn commitments, enabling transpositions into various Dutch lines depending on Black's reply.[1] White typically follows with e3, Bd3, or g3 to build a robust center and prepare castling, preserving flexibility to meet Black's setup with appropriate central or flank play.[1] Less frequent options include 2.e3, which reinforces the d4 pawn and supports a solid, London System-like development with Bd3 and Nf3, though it cedes some initiative to Black's f5 pawn.[1] The aggressive 2.Bg5, known as the Raphael Variation, targets potential weaknesses on f6 but is generally considered viable only with precise follow-up like e3, as Black can counter sharply with ...f4 to exploit the bishop's exposure.[1] Similarly, 2.h3 represents a prophylactic idea, often aimed at preventing ...Bg4 pins and preparing g4 to undermine the f5 pawn in anti-Stonewall preparations, though its rarity stems from limited practical testing and Black's ability to develop freely.[17]Main Lines
Leningrad Variation
The Leningrad Variation of the Dutch Defence arises after the moves 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6.[18] This setup allows Black to adopt a hypermodern approach, fianchettoing the kingside bishop while maintaining flexibility in the center. Unlike the more rigid Stonewall structure, the Leningrad emphasizes dynamic pawn breaks and piece activity. Black typically continues with 4.Bg2 Bg7, developing the bishop to exert long-term pressure along the a1-h8 diagonal, followed by 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 to support a potential ...e5 advance.[19] A key subline is 7.Nc3 c6, solidifying the queenside and preparing ...b5 for counterplay against White's center.[20] Black's strategic plans revolve around kingside expansion via ...e5, targeting weaknesses around White's castled king, while the fianchettoed bishop reinforces the defense and eyes the e5 square for central control. On the queenside, Black often pushes ...b5 to challenge c4 and open lines for the b8-knight or rook. White seeks to counter Black's ambitions through central breaks, such as advancing e4 to seize space or maneuvering Nc3 to d5 to disrupt the ...e5 push.[19] A critical position emerges in the main line after 7...Qe8 8.b3 Na6, where White can develop with 9.d5 or 9.Rb1, aiming to restrict Black's knight and prepare e4.[20] These responses highlight White's focus on solidifying the center before exploiting Black's overextension on the kingside. Theoretically, the Leningrad is regarded as sound by modern chess engines, offering Black unbalanced positions with good practical chances despite a slight statistical edge for White. Database statistics indicate Black achieves win rates around 40% at master level, underscoring its viability for ambitious play. A notable example is L.E. Johannessen vs. H. Nakamura (2010), where Black's precise ...e5 timing and queenside pressure led to a decisive kingside attack after 25 moves.[21]Stonewall Variation
The Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defence arises after the moves 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5, where Black establishes a rigid pawn chain on f5, e6, d5, and typically c6 following 4.e3 c6.[6] This structure, resembling a "stonewall," provides Black with a solid barrier in the center and equal space, while restricting White's central expansion.[6] Common continuation includes 5.Bd3 Bd6, developing the dark-squared bishop to challenge White's setup and prepare for further kingside maneuvers.[6] Black's primary plans revolve around an aggressive kingside assault, often involving ...Qf6 to support ...Ne4, followed by ...g5 to advance the pawn majority and target the white kingside.[22] On the queenside, Black may pursue a minority attack with ...b6, ...Bb7, and ...c5, aiming to undermine White's pawn structure after potential exchanges.[6] This setup exploits dark-square control but leaves Black's light-squared bishop on c8 potentially blocked by the pawn chain, requiring careful development or exchange to activate it.[22] White's counters focus on central breaks to disrupt the stonewall, such as advancing e4 to challenge the d5 pawn or f4 to contest Black's f5 support and open lines.[6] Exchanging dark-squared bishops via Bd3xc5 or similar can relieve pressure, while White's light-squared bishop on d3 may face occlusion if the center remains closed, though it often targets the weakened e6 pawn.[6] These responses highlight the variation's inherent tensions, where Black's passivity can be exploited if the kingside initiative falters. Theoretically, the Stonewall is considered risky due to its locked structure and potential for White to gain activity, though it remains viable in sharper, gambit-like forms that accelerate Black's attack.[6] Historical examples include games by Max Euwe, who employed the variation effectively in the mid-20th century to demonstrate its attacking potential against unprepared opponents.[23] At modern top levels, it is largely avoided owing to White's superior win rates, with Black scoring approximately 22% in database games, often settling for draws in solid lines rather than pressing for imbalance.[24] Unlike the more flexible Leningrad Variation, the Stonewall commits early to ...d5, limiting dynamic options but offering a straightforward path for club players seeking kingside chances.[6]Classical Variation
The Classical Variation of the Dutch Defence arises after the moves 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6, where Black supports the f5-pawn with a solid pawn structure on the queenside while preparing flexible central control.[25] This setup contrasts with more rigid Dutch lines by avoiding an early commitment to ...d5, allowing Black to develop harmoniously before deciding on central breaks.[1] Typical Black development follows with 3...Nf6, targeting e4, then 4...Be7 to safeguard the king and prepare castling, followed by 5...O-O and 6...d6 to reinforce the center without immediate pawn tension.[25] Black's strategic plans emphasize dynamic kingside initiative, often involving the rerouting of the queen via ...Qe8 to f7 or h5 for pressure against White's castled position, or an eventual ...g5 advance to support pawn storms.[1] The delayed ...d5 push, typically played after completing development, challenges White's center while maintaining pawn flexibility, avoiding the Stonewall's locked structure.[26] This approach fosters unbalanced positions where Black seeks active piece play, such as maneuvering the knight to e4 via ...Ne4 after ...d6 and ...Nbd7.[25] White's primary counters include 3.g3, preparing the fianchetto with Bg2 to contest the long diagonal and solidify the kingside, or 3.Nf3 for a classical development aiming at e5 pressure.[25] Against 3.Nc3, Black often interposes 3...Bb4+, pinning the knight and disrupting White's queenside coordination before trading with ...Bxc3+ to damage White's pawn structure.[27] A sample line is 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 (or 4.Nc3) Nf6 5.Bg2 Be7, where Black retreats to maintain harmony while White develops the bishop actively.[25] Theoretically, the Classical Variation is considered balanced and less committal for Black, offering near-equality according to modern engines like Stockfish, which evaluate main lines at approximately +0.3 for White in balanced middlegames.[28] It has been employed by prominent players, including Mikhail Botvinnik, who favored its solid yet aggressive nature in the mid-20th century, particularly in lines blending Stonewall elements.[29] Post-2020 developments include refined White setups analyzed by grandmasters like Sam Shankland, emphasizing central breaks, with Black countering via improved knight maneuvers; a 2023 database update highlights these tweaks for sharper play.[30]Sidelines and Gambits
Staunton Gambit
The Staunton Gambit arises after 1.d4 f5 2.e4 in the Dutch Defence, where White immediately challenges Black's pawn structure by offering a pawn sacrifice to seize the initiative and open the center.[31] This aggressive line, classified under ECO code A82, was popularized by English chess master Howard Staunton, who introduced it during his 1846 match against Bernhard Horwitz in London, marking one of the earliest recorded uses of this gambit against the Dutch.[32] Historically, it gained a reputation as a sharp weapon in the 19th century, but modern analysis views it as risky for White due to Black's solid defensive resources. The standard move order proceeds with 2...fxe4 3.Nc3, developing the knight to contest the e4 square while pressuring Black to respond precisely. Black's main continuation is 3...Nf6, attacking the pawn on e4 indirectly and preparing kingside development, though 3...d5 is an alternative that solidifies the center but cedes some tempo.[31] From here, White often plays 4.Bg5, pinning the knight on f6 to disrupt Black's coordination and target weaknesses around the e7 pawn, or 4.f3, aiming to regain the pawn while opening the f-file for rook pressure.[31] Black can accept the gambit fully by capturing on e4 early or develop with ...e6 followed by ...d5 to challenge White's center, aiming for a pawn-up position after neutralizing the initial threats. White's compensation for the sacrificed pawn centers on rapid development, open lines for the pieces, and attacking chances against Black's uncastled king, particularly if Black delays ...e6 or ...d5. However, if Black survives the early onslaught—often by solidifying with ...e6, ...Be7, and ...O-O—White risks falling into a cramped, material-deficient middlegame without sufficient activity.[31] Theoretically, the Staunton Gambit is considered sharp but refutable, with Black holding an edge in accurate play according to database evaluations. In a sample of 2,606 games from major databases as of 2025, White scores 39.7% wins, Black 23.3% wins, and 37% draws, indicating low adoption at high levels today due to these risks.[33] Notable historical practitioners include Frank J. Marshall and Savielly Tartakower for White, but contemporary usage remains rare among top players.[33]Other White Second Moves
After 1.d4 f5, White occasionally deviates from the main responses (2.c4, 2.e4, and 2.g3) with less common second moves, aiming for surprise value or specific strategic ideas, though these lines remain rare due to Black's solid development prospects and the imbalance created by the f5-pawn advance. These options prioritize flexibility or early aggression but often prove passive or risky, with database evidence showing White achieving modest results at best.[1] The Raphael Variation arises with 2.Nc3, developing the knight early to control e4 and prepare potential central advances like e4 or Bg5, often transposing to other lines but allowing White flexible queenside options. Black typically responds with 2...Nf6 or 2...d5, equalizing comfortably by challenging the center. In database statistics, after 2...Nf6 (over 1,000 games as of 2025), White scores approximately 47% wins, with draws around 23% and Black 30%, reflecting a balanced but slightly favorable outcome for White in practice.[34] The move 2.Bf4, sometimes associated with London System ideas, develops the bishop actively to support e3 and control e5 while eyeing kingside harmony. Black can counter with 2...Nf6 or 2...e6 followed by ...d5, maintaining central tension. This line offers White solidity but limited aggression, with database results showing White around 50% overall scores in roughly 500 games as of 2025, though it avoids sharp Dutch theory.[2] The move 2.b3 transposes toward a Larsen's Opening structure, allowing White to fianchetto the queenside bishop on b2 for control of the e5-square while maintaining central tension. This setup offers flexibility, as White can later support a pawn break with c4 or e4, but it remains passive since Black gains unopposed kingside space and can develop harmoniously with ...Nf6, ...e6, and ...d5. In practice, Black equalizes comfortably, as evidenced by database statistics where, after 2...Nf6, White scores 45.7% wins across 335 games, with draws at 21.5% and Black wins at 32.8%.[35][36] An aggressive alternative is 2.f4, challenging Black's f5-pawn directly and aiming for rapid kingside expansion, but this proves suicidal as it overextends White's structure, leaving the e4-square vulnerable and permitting Black easy central counterplay with ...e5 or ...d5 followed by quick development. Black often regains the pawn or more with active piece play, leading to poor results for White; in 114 database games, White wins just 22% while Black secures 46%, underscoring the line's rarity and inferiority.[37][38] More modern preparation appears in 2.h4, an anti-Dutch idea designed to cramp Black's kingside by threatening h5 and preventing expansive pushes like ...g5, while preparing potential queenside play with c4. However, this weakens White's own kingside pawn structure, inviting Black to counter with ...g6 and ...Bg7 for dynamic fianchetto development, resulting in sharp, unbalanced positions. The move's surprise element makes it effective in unprepared games, but it remains infrequent due to the structural concessions.[39] The Hopton Attack is 2.Bg5, attempting an early pin on Black's potential ...Nf6 while eyeing the e7-pawn and kingside weaknesses, but Black refutes the pressure with 2...f4, advancing the pawn to gain space and force White's bishop to retreat awkwardly (e.g., 3.Be3 or 3.Bd2), allowing Black fluid development. Database analysis confirms the line's viability challenges for White, though aggressive captures like 3.Bxf6 after ...Nf6 yield 52.6% White wins in 479 games; overall, the move scores around 50% for White but demands precise handling to avoid Black's counter-initiative.[40][41] Finally, 2.Qc2 serves as a rare prophylactic measure, supporting a future e4 advance to challenge the f5-pawn while eyeing b3 and c4 for queenside harmony, but it blocks the c1-bishop and cedes time to Black's pieces. This subtle idea disrupts standard Dutch setups but lacks punch, appearing in fewer than 50 database games with neutral scoring, making it suitable only for players seeking avoidance of theory. The Staunton Gambit (2.e4) stands as the primary aggressive sideline for White.[42]Notable Players
Historical Practitioners
One of the earliest prominent figures associated with the Dutch Defence was Howard Staunton, the English chess master who popularized the aggressive Staunton Gambit (1.d4 f5 2.e4) as White against the opening in the 1840s, thereby highlighting its dynamic potential and influencing early theory.[31] In the mid-19th century, Adolf Anderssen, the dominant player of the 1850s, employed the Dutch Defence in aggressive styles during tournaments and matches.[43] The 20th century saw significant development through Max Euwe, the Dutch mathematician and fifth World Chess Champion (1935–1937), who became a leading expert on the Stonewall Variation during the 1930s. Euwe's deep understanding of the structure's pawn formation (with Black's pawns on d5, e6, f5, and g6) allowed him to both defend and counter it effectively as White; a notable example is his victory over Alexander Alekhine in game 26 of their 1935 World Championship match in The Netherlands, where Euwe dismantled Alekhine's Dutch setup with a brilliant central break and kingside assault, contributing to his overall match win by 15½–14½.[44] Euwe's analytical work, including his book The Logical Approach to Chess (1958, based on earlier Dutch editions), provided foundational insights into positional play in openings like the Stonewall, emphasizing logical pyramid-like construction of pawn centers to control key squares.[45] Mikhail Botvinnik, the Soviet engineer and sixth World Chess Champion, further innovated the Dutch in the 1940s as a Black player, particularly the Leningrad Variation (with ...g6 and bishop fianchetto on g7 for kingside counterplay). Botvinnik adopted it in key domestic events, such as his win over Vladimir Makogonov in the 1940 USSR Championship using a sharp Leningrad line, and leveraged it for victories in the 1944 and 1945 USSR Championships, where he scored 12½/17 and 15/17 respectively amid wartime conditions.[46] His systematic preparation transformed the Dutch from a risky choice into a reliable weapon, as detailed in his annotations that stressed dynamic pawn breaks and piece activity, influencing Soviet chess school theory on unbalanced positions.[47]Modern Adopters
In the late 20th century, Garry Kasparov emerged as a prominent advocate of the Leningrad Variation of the Dutch Defence, employing it frequently during the 1980s and 1990s to challenge opponents in high-stakes encounters, including world championship matches. His aggressive handling of the opening's kingside fianchetto structures contributed to its reputation for dynamic counterplay among elite players. Similarly, Veselin Topalov utilized aggressive lines of the Dutch in the 2000s, notably in games like his 1993 encounter against Alexander Khalifman, where sharp tactical motifs led to decisive advantages for Black.[48] Topalov's approach emphasized rapid development and kingside attacks, influencing subsequent interpretations at the grandmaster level.[49] Among contemporary grandmasters, Hikaru Nakamura stands out as a leading proponent, regularly incorporating the Dutch into his repertoire since the 2010s, particularly in rapid and blitz formats where its imbalances yield higher winning chances for Black.[50] Nakamura's success, including a notable victory in the 2019 U.S. Championship using the opening, has helped sustain its viability against top opposition.[51] Anish Giri, the five-time Dutch champion and a key figure in the Netherlands national team, has also navigated the Dutch effectively in recent years, as seen in his 2022 game analyzed for its risky yet rewarding structure.[52] At the super-grandmaster level (ratings above 2700), the Dutch appears in a small percentage of responses to 1.d4. It performs strongly in faster time controls due to the opening's tactical complexity. At club level (ratings 1800-2200), popularity remains higher, with resources and courses promoting it as an accessible weapon for ambitious Black players seeking unbalanced positions.[49] Recent adopters include Magnus Carlsen, who revived it in a 2025 blitz game for its surprise value.[53] Emerging talents like R. Praggnanandhaa have faced it in elite events but shown interest in its ideas through preparatory analysis in 2024-2025 tournaments.[54] Ian Nepomniachtchi has also employed the Dutch successfully in high-level play, including Candidates Tournaments and World Championship matches.Codes and Resources
ECO Classifications
The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) is a standard classification system for chess openings, developed by Chess Informant, that assigns alphanumeric codes to specific move sequences to facilitate study and reference. The Dutch Defence, arising after 1.d4 f5, is grouped under the A-series codes A80–A99, which cover Queen's Pawn openings where Black plays an early ...f5, emphasizing aggressive kingside play while challenging White's center. These codes delineate main lines, variations, and sidelines based on White's second and subsequent moves, with subcodes refining specific continuations. The classifications have remained largely unchanged since the core ECO volumes (up to 15, published through 2002), with no major revisions to Dutch-specific codes reported post-2020 in updated databases like ChessBase's Opening Encyclopaedia.[55][56] The following table provides a comprehensive overview of the ECO codes for the Dutch Defence, including variation names and key move sequences as defined in the ECO system. Note that some codes encompass multiple related lines.| ECO Code | Variation | Moves |
|---|---|---|
| A80 | Dutch Defence (unusual White second moves, e.g., 2.e3 or 2.Bg5) | 1.d4 f5 (except 2.g3, 2.e4, 2.c4)[55] |
| A81 | Dutch Defence (Fianchetto) | 1.d4 f5 2.g3[55] |
| A82 | Dutch Defence, Staunton Gambit | 1.d4 f5 2.e4[55] |
| A83 | Dutch Defence, Staunton Gambit (with 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5) | 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5[55] |
| A84 | Dutch Defence (with 2.c4 e6) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6[55] |
| A85 | Dutch Defence (with 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3[55] |
| A86 | Dutch Defence, Leningrad Variation (sidelines without 5.Nf3) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 (without 5.Nf3)[55] |
| A87 | Dutch Defence, Leningrad Variation (main line with 7.Nc3) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3[55] |
| A88 | Dutch Defence, Leningrad Variation (main line with 7...c6) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 c6[55] |
| A89 | Dutch Defence, Leningrad Variation (main line with 7...Nc6) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6[55] |
| A90 | Dutch Defence, Stonewall/Classical hybrid | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5[55] |
| A91 | Dutch Defence, Classical Variation (with ...Be7 5.Nc3) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3[55] |
| A92 | Dutch Defence, Classical/Stonewall | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0[55] |
| A93 | Dutch Defence, Classical Stonewall (with 7.b3 c6) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.b3 c6[55] |
| A94 | Dutch Defence, Classical Stonewall (with 8.Ba3) | 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[55] |
| A95 | Dutch Defence, Stonewall (with 8.Qc2 after 7.b3) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.b3 c6 8.Qc2[55] |
| A96 | Dutch Defence, Classical Variation, Ilyin-Genevsky | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3[55] |
| A97 | Dutch Defence, Ilyin-Genevsky Variation (with 8.Re1) | 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Re1[55] |
| A98 | Dutch Defence, Ilyin-Genevsky Variation (with 8.Qc2) | 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[55] |
| A99 | Dutch Defence, Ilyin-Genevsky Variation (with 8.b3) | 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[55] |