My 3,762 Word Essay on the Dutch Defense...

The Dutch Defense: Acquiring Knowledge
By Eric Shoemaker

In learning a new opening or defense in chess; one has to consider, what is the best to approach the undertaking? There are many methods of doing this, for instance, a chess player might only study the columns pertinent to the opening or defense in the latest edition of Modern Chess Openings, or he may only study Master Games on the opening or defense in question. Most chess players will do both in their attempts at a successful cross referencing. And some chess players prefer a more academic or essay-like approach. This latter method is the more correct, but it is never a finished product as one must always be on the alert to make the necessary additions to the already acquired knowledge on the subject.

History is very important; in fact it is so important that it inspired the great Orator Marcus Tullius Cicero to say, “History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity”—Cicero, Pro Publio Sestio. Of course, not all history will suffice; one must get to what we historians like to call the ‘Historical Conflict.’

In the Dutch Defense, one such ‘historical conflict’ arises in Modern Chess Openings, 12th Edition, when Walter Korn makes the following statement:

Occasionally favoured by Morphy in the mid-nineteenth century, this aggressive defense caught on only after Botvinnik’s success with it in his 1933 match with Flohr and at Nottingham in 1936. It was then adopted by Alekhin, Alexander, Bronstein, R. Byrne, Tartakover, and Guimard. But when Alekhin discarded it and Botvinnik’s ardour cooled, it went under a cloud. Today it is considered sound but unfashionable—pro tem!

The historical conflict that is interesting in the above statement concerns the future World Chess Champion Mikhail Botvinnik. Just how successful was he in his use of the Dutch Defense? In his 1933 Match with Salo Flohr, he had to come from behind to draw the match (+2 =8 -2) and only used it twice, obtaining a win in the ‘Stonewall Variation’ and a draw in the ‘Ilyin-Zhenevsky’ Variation. Other than those two games, Botvinnik used the Gruenfeld Defense and the Nimzo-Indian Defense. But in the former, he only obtained a draw and in the latter he obtained a draw and a loss. However, the real reason for Botvinnik’s use of the two Indian Defenses mentioned above and the Dutch Defense remains hidden in the above statement by Korn. Further research reveals that Czech Grandmaster Salo Flohr was particularly deadly with the ‘Queen’s Gambit’, therefore Botvinnik had cause to avoid that line of play. And at the Nottingham Tournament in 1936, Botvinnik only used the Dutch Defense once, a ‘Stonewall Variation’, drawing with Grandmaster Samuel Reshevsky, but in that game, Reshevsky, a time trouble addict, threw away the win in time trouble. In Reshevsky’s work, Reshevsky’s Best Games of Chess, he writes, “Botvinnik is one of the few masters who are fond of this ‘Stonewall’ Variation, which creates weaknesses on the Black squares and makes a tardy development of the Queen’s Bishop inevitable” (Reshevsky, p. 88). Therefore, after further research, the knowledge acquired is that Botvinnik only used the Dutch Defense a total of three times and obtained one win and two draws. And furthermore, we learn that Salo Flohr was extremely dangerous with the ‘Queen’s Gambit’, which may have prompted Botvinnik to use a various array of defenses and that Samuel Reshevsky was somewhat skeptical of the ‘Stonewall’ Variation of the Dutch Defense.

There’s two things further that are ascertained by taking a historical conflict and expanding the history of that conflict and they are: 1) Botvinnik in his use of the Dutch Defense, not only used the ‘Stonewall’ Variation but also the line known as the ‘Ilyin-Zhenevsky’ Variation. Later in this essay, it will be explained why it is necessary for the competent Dutch Defense player to know both of these lines of play, although for Botvinnik, a renowned expert on the French Defense, it was not necessary to know both, and 2) This is only one such conflict, other conflicts being possible of course, for the Dutch Defense was known before Botvinnik’s time and certainly more so after Botvinnik’s time. This is just a convenient place to begin due to Salo Flohr being a World Title Contender (although he never faired well against Alexander Alekhin in previous encounters), and the prestige of the Nottingham International Tournament of 1936.

But to actually learn how to play the ‘Dutch Defense’, one needs to get beyond the history or historical conflict. It was only necessary to begin there to understand just what conditions Botvinnik would play the ‘Dutch Defense’ under (in this case, tournament and match conditions) and what risks would he take with regards to whom he played it against. Obviously, Salo Flohr and Samuel Reshevsky were very strong players in Botvinnik’s day, possibly even at their peak. Therefore, Botvinnik thought the defense sound enough to play even at the highest levels.

A good place to begin is to start with possibly the oldest try against the ‘Dutch Defense’, which is probably the ‘Classical Variation.’ Most of the early games with this defense feature this variation, including a game by the great chess player and endgame virtuoso, Jose Raul Capablanca. The Classical Variation has a couple of distinct features, one of which is that the move ‘e3’ is often played, and of course, 2. c4 is usually the trademark beginning of the subsequent play.

For the aspirant of the Black pieces in this Opening, and White too for that matter, it is best to arm oneself with some of the crucial ‘starting points’ or ‘tabiyas’ in the position. In the Classical Variation, there are three noticeable ones that keep retaining their place in games with the Dutch Defense: 1) 1. d4, f5 2. c4, e6 3. g3, Nf6 4. Bg2, Be7 2) 1. d4, f5 2. c4, e6 3. g3, Nf6 4. Bg2, Bb4+ and 3) 1. d4, f5 2. c4, e6 3. Nf3, d5 4. e3, c6 5. Bd3, Nf6. There are some slight variations to these three lines of play, but they are not crucial to theory and the Dutch Defense player should have no trouble in at least equalizing the game. At any rate, the second player can always commit himself/herself to the study of a line, if he feels that it might prove troublesome in over the board play.

How many lines of play should one become acquainted with against these Classical Variation sub-variations? That is entirely up to the individual tournament chess player. One player might think a particular line is crucial to the theory that is being put together, while another player might think that the same line has no real value. Theoretical matters such as this also depend on how much time is available to the chess player. But to add weight to the current analysis of the Dutch Defense, one line each should suffice, as this essay appears to be growing in content and seems to be taking on a life of its own.

The Classical Variation:

a) 1. d4, f5 2. c4, e6 3. g3, Nf6 4. Bg2, Be7 5. Nc3, 0-0 6. e3, d5 7. Nge2, c6
8. b3, Bd6 9. 0-0, Qe7 10. Qc2, Ne4 11. Bb2=. Comments/MCO-12th
Edition.

b) 1. d4, f5 2. c4, e6 3. g3, Nf6 4. Bg2, Bb4+ 5. Nd2, Ne4 6. a3, Nxd2
7. Bxd2, Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2, 0-0 9. Nh3--See Znosko-Borovsky’s “How To
Play The Chess Openings” (Znosko-Borovsky, p. 94).

c) 1. d4, f5 2. c4, e6 3. Nf3, d5 4. e3, c6 5. Bd3, Nf6 is a typical transposition
that can also be reached by way of the Queen’s Gambit Declined, and
Semi-Slav Defenses—See Reuben Fine’s “Ideas Behind The Chess
Openings” (Fine, p. 108).

None of these lines are very promising for White, for in Line A, Black despite having moved his King’s Bishop twice in the opening was already a move ahead in development due to the many pawn moves by White and White only catches up as he is equalizing on move eleven. In Znosko-Borovsky’s Line, also mentioned by Reuben Fine (briefly), White in playing for the ‘Bishop-Pair’ was unable to succeed because his c-pawn was undefended in the line. And finally, in Line C, White can play for a ‘Counter-Stonewall’, to equalize by playing the move 6. Ne5. The effective ‘Double-Stonewall’ was a favorite trick of Capablanca when he himself had to face the ‘Stonewall Attack’, but here the colors are reversed. This drab and rather boring idea once again reared its ugly head in the more modern game, Grabliauskas—Tregubov, Berlin, 1996. Thus it is already seen that over time, not much has changed with regards to the theory of the Classical Variation.

If the more common lines above are not sufficiently convincing to prove the inadequacy of the Classical Variation, then sometimes more verbiage can be used to tip the scales. In MCO-12th Edition, Walter Korn writes, “The Classical System, with 2. c4, has, true to its name, become dormant and will only revive after new paths have been opened” (Korn, 402).

To Korn, it was a dormant volcano and thus far, he has been correct, as no new paths have been opened that would lead to an unexpected eruption. However, that doesn’t mean that great games haven’t been played in the line, but unfortunately though, it was the player of the Black side that had the geological dynamics:

The Polish Immortal:

White: Glucksberg
Black: Miguel Najdorf Dutch Defense/Classical Variation

1. d4, f5 2. c4, Nf6 3. Nc3, e6 4. Nf3, d5 5. e3, c6 6. Bd3, Bd6 7. 0-0, 0-0 8. Ne2, Nbd7 9. Ng5, Bxh2+ 10. Kh1, Ng4 11. f4, Qe8 12. g3, Qh5 13. Kg2, Bg1 14. Nxg1, Qh2+ 15. Kf3, e5 16. dxe5, Ndxe5+ 17. fxe5, Nxe5+ 18. Kf4, Ng6+ 19. Kf3, f4 20. exf4, Bg4+ 21. Kxg4, Ne5+ 22. fxe5, h5#, 0-1, Glucksberg—Najdorf, Warsaw, 1929?

Incredible! Miguel Najdorf gives up four Minor Pieces!

White: Ekstein
Black: Laes Dutch Defense/Classical Variation

1. d4, f5 2. c4, Nf6 3. Nc3, e6 4. Nf3, Bb4 5. Qc2, c5 6. e3, b6 7. Bd2, Bb7 8. Be2, 0-0 9. a3, Bxc3 10. Bxc3, Ne4 11. 0-0, Rf6 12. Nd2, Rh6 13. g3?, Nxd2 14. Qxd2, Qh4!! 15. White Resigned. 0-1, Ekstein—Laes, Talinn Championship, 1956.


Thus it’s possible to conclude that the ‘Classical Variation’ is no threat to the Dutch Defense.

The Modern System with White playing 2. g3 is currently the line that is most difficult for Black to meet and indeed, it is here that one will find out exactly what kind of Dutch Defense player one is facing over the board. This is because the Opening Sequence for White is virtually the same in its developmental set-up against not only the ‘Stonewall Variation’, but also the ‘Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation’ and also the ‘Leningrad and Antoshin Variations’, or ‘Dutch-Indian’ set-ups as they are called by Walter Korn in MCO-12th Edition.

In order to continue our study of the Dutch Defense, it is definitely necessary to give some structure to the Dutch Defense. Below is a listing of the typical Dutch Defense set-ups against the ‘Modern’ System:

a) The Stonewall Variation:

1. d4, f5 2. g3, e6 3. Bg2, Nf6 4. Nf3, Be7 5. 0-0, 0-0 6. c4, d5

b) The Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation:

1. d4, f5 2. g3, e6 3. Bg2, Nf6 4. Nf3, Be7 5. 0-0, 0-0 6. c4, d6

c) The Leningrad Variation:

1. d4, f5 2. g3, g6 3. Bg2, Nf6 4. Nf3, Bg7 5. 0-0, 0-0 6. c4, d6

d) Antoshin’s Variation:

1. d4, f5 2. g3, Nf6 3. Bg2, d6 4. c4, c6

There are basically two types of Dutch Defense players, one type will play either the ‘Stonewall Variation’ or the ‘Ilyin-Zhenevsky’ Variation and this type of defender will actually have to know both variations, as it depends on just how White develops the King’s Knight in the Opening. The other type of defender will often deploy a set-up with the move 2…g6, leading to the Leningrad and Antoshin Variations. These two variations should be studied together as they can transpose and are very similar. Today, the Leningrad Variation is the most popular of the variations of the Dutch Defense.

These truths are born out by Walter Korn’s statement in MCO-12th Edition when he writes the following:

Development and pawn chains are much influenced by the action of White’s Kings’ Knight. When it is developed at ‘h3’, in conjunction with the fianchetto of the King’s Bishop, Black counters best with ‘…d6’ and ‘…e5’ because the Stonewall would permit White a rapid ‘f3’ and ‘e4.’ With the Knight on ‘f3’ Black may enter the typical Stonewall granite formation of the pawns on ‘d5’, ‘c6’, ‘e6’ (Korn, p. 401).

This statement adequately explains both types of Dutch Defense players, for those with leanings towards the ‘Stonewall Variation’ and the ‘Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation’ will have to observe the development of the White King’s Knight, while those with leanings towards the ‘Leningrad or Antoshin Variations’ do not have to observe the White King’s Knight as much, as the difference is not as great, at least not so much as to overturn the theory of the variation. The former type of Dutch Defense player can face problems early in the game by not observing White’s King’s Knight.

Before continuing with the theory of the ‘Modern Variation’, it’s important to understand what the ideas are for both the first player and the second player in the Dutch Defense. I therefore, impress upon the mind the return to the sources, who by their eloquence in getting their ideas across; make it therefore possible for the rest of us to come to an accurate grasp of both the attack and the defense.

There is no one among the newer masters of today and very few of the older masters, if any, from long ago, who are able to shed with such brilliance of light, that confusion as to what White should be doing in the Dutch Defense, as Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky. In his work, How To Play The Chess Openings, he writes:

What should White’s tactics be in this opening? He must for the time being give up his operations on the Queen’s side and by a well-thought out defense on the King’s side compel his opponent to engage as many pieces as possible in the attack which he will gradually master. Above all, he must concentrate on the centre by free play of his pieces and by controlling all the important squares. Then, if Black does not follow up his attack, White will get an advantage simply by positional play, and if his attack is repulsed, his downfall will be only the more rapid (Znosko-Borovsky, p. 94)

This apt description, of course, only applies to the ‘Modern Variation’ and perhaps to some extent the ‘Classical Variation’ with respect to the lines chosen where White fianchettos his King’s Bishop.

To understand the ideas for Black in this opening, I’ll turn first to Walter Korn and then to Reuben Fine. In MCO-12th Edition, Walter Korn writes, “The main idea of the Dutch is control of Black’s ‘K5’ (e4) coupled with the use of the King’s Bishop and King’s Knight files for a possible attack” (Korn, p. 401). In his work, The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings, Reuben Fine writes, “Black’s counter-attack calls for …Ne4, …Qe8-h5, ….g5, …Rf6-h6” (Fine, p. 161). And in his work How To Play The Chess Openings, Znosko-Borovsky writes:

By making the move 1…P-KB4 (1…f5), he commits himself to an attack on the King’s side, and it is always bad to show one’s hand too soon. Furthermore, this attack is difficult to carry out because of the lack of openings for his Bishops (Znosko-Borovsky, p. 93)


In addition, in “The Penguin Book of Chess Openings, W.R. Hartston writes:

By advancing his KBP, Black already announces his intention to play for a K-side attack in the middle game. His weakened king position, however, gives grounds to suspect the safety of the whole idea (Hartston, p. 238)

And so by using several sources in conjunction, it is easier to get a clearer picture of how to play both sides of this opening.

There only remains for the aspiring Dutch player is the choosing of lines of play, to better illustrate how the game could possibly play out. Keep in mind what was said earlier, in that the number of lines chosen to be included in one’s repertoire is largely dependent on the individual chess player and what he/she feels is necessary in order to be able to play the opening correctly.

The Stonewall Variation:

a) 1. d4, f5 2. g3, e6 3. Bg2, Nf6 4. Nf3, Be7 5. 0-0, 0-0 6. c4, d5 7. b3, c6 8. Ba3, b6
9. Bxe7, Qxe7 10. Ne5, Bb7 11. Nd2, Nbd7 12. Nxd7, Nxd7 13. e3, Rac8
14. Rc1, c5 15. Qe2 (Botvinnik—Bronstein, match 1951), Ba6=. MCO-12th
Edition.

The Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation:

a) 1. d4, f5 2. g3, e6 3. Bg2, Nf6 4. Nf3, Be7 5. 0-0, 0-0 6. c4, d6 7. Nc3, a5 8. Re1,
Ne4 9. Qc2, Nc6 10. Nxe4, Nb4 11. Qb1, fxe4 12. Qxe4, e5 13. g4!, exd4
14. Nxd4, Bh4 15. Be3, Re8 16. Qf4, Rf8; Drawn. Reshevsky—Larsen, Santa
Monica, 1966. MCO-12th Edition.

The Leningrad/Antoshin Variations:

a) 1. d4, f5 2. g3, Nf6 3. Bg2, g6 4. Nf3, Bg7 5. c4, 0-0 6. 0-0, d6 7. d5, Nbd7
8. Nc3, Nc5 9. Qc2, a5=. MCO-12th Edition.

b) 1. d4, f5 2. g3, g6 3. Bg2, Nf6 4. Nf3, Bg7 5. 0-0, 0-0 6. c4, d6 7. Nc3, c6!
8. Qc2, Kh8 9. Bg5, Be6=. Mecking—Botvinnik, Hastings, 1966. MCO-12th
Edition.

Here, I have purposely chosen lines, in which, Black was able to achieve equality regardless of the variation chosen, and in addition, against play by White that was unambitious. Naturally, in my own practice with the Dutch Defense, I have a secret addendum to any part of my Opening Repertoire that I may have revealed here; but the purpose of these lines is to reveal how one can learn their openings and defenses using a more scholarly and academic approach, this being done by adding both lines of play and games to the essay-like structure and keeping note of the fact that it is never a finished product.

In the Stonewall Variation above, although in the line given, it looks like Bronstein did not find 15…Ba6 in the actual game cited, we know historically that Botvinnik struggled to draw that World Championship Match. And in the Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation, I chose a sharp draw between Samuel Reshevsky and Bent Larsen, a game played at Santa Monica, 1966. Finally, in the Leningrad/Antoshin Variations, I chose an equal line (line a) that could easily have arisen from both systems given that both are apt to transpose into each other at any time. The other line (line b) was interesting because it was played between Henrique Mecking and Mikhail Botvinnik. Botvinnik had to be coming close to retirement as the Latin player from Brazil was coming onto the World Chess stage.

White also has a number of gambits such as the ‘Staunton Gambit’ (1. d4, f5 2. e4, fxe4 3. Nc3, Nf6 4. Bg5), the ‘Korchnoi Gambit’ (1. d4, f5 2. g4, fxg4 3. h3, d5), ‘Ulvestad’s Gambit’ (1. d4, f5 2. Qd3, e6 3. g4), as well as continuations that have as its main feature an early development by White’s Queen’s Bishop (1. d4, f5 2. Bg5, h6 3. Bh4, g5 4. e3; and/or 1. d4, f5 2. Nc3, d5 3. Bg5), but these systems are more likely to lead to easy equality or flashy tactical draws than to lead to any lasting advantage for White. In the last analysis, these lines of play are often played by those wishing to avoid theory and as such, they are mere interlopers to already existing theory; in other words, the more established lines of play.

This little survey takes the Reader from 1933 to roughly 1982 as far as the sources I used to write it (sources are listed below). But if every tournament chess player added all of their lines (something tournament players cannot really do, for an opponent may be watching or indeed may be reading in this case), the 1982 mark would be broken, for since Botvinnik’s time, the Dutch Defense has been taken up with success by such players as Short, Kramnik and Yusupov and most especially Malaniuk.

I hope to have impressed upon the reader the advantages obtained by writing an essay on one’s favorite lines of play or on openings and defenses one may intend to take up in the future. I know that by doing this, I have helped my own cause for I am now stronger on the White side of the Dutch Defense also in addition to taking up the defense myself. Although limited here, due to the fact that tournament chess players cannot reveal their actual opening repertoire (at least not in detail anyway), it can easily be discerned that an actual survey in this format would have ‘all’ of the player’s chosen lines and games and history and anything else that that player would wish to add to the survey. This is only an example, of how it could be done, it is by no means complete as it is, but it does allow the Dutch Defense to be played if one follows the example. My secret addendum to this is much more thorough as it has all of my chosen lines of play in addition to sources I didn’t use to write the essay. Any other player who wishes to write an essay-like analysis of their own chosen line would necessarily also have a secret addendum to this model. Here, I only show the way.

Bibliography

Clarke, P.H. 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures. Dover Publications, Inc. Mineola,
New York, 2000.


Korn, Walter. Modern Chess Openings, 12th Edition. David McKay Company, Inc.
New York, 1982.

Fine, Reuben. The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings. Random House, Inc.
New York, 1943.

Hartston, W.R. The Penguin Book of Chess Openings. Penguin Books, ltd.
New York, New York, 1981.

Reshevsky, Samuel. Reshevsky’s Best Games of Chess. Dover Publications, Inc.
New York, New York, 1948.

Znosko-Borovsky, Eugene A. How To Play The Chess Openings. Dover
Publications, Inc. New York, 1935.