Grandmaster Guide

Playing the Stonewall Dutch

By

Nikola Sedlak

Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
 Contents
Key to Symbols used & Bibliography 4
Preface 5
Introduction 7

1 Avoiding the Fianchetto 21

2 Fianchetto with ¥f4 57
3 7.¤bd2 & 7.¤e5 81
4 7.¤c3 105
5 7.b3 119
6 5.¤h3 161
7 The Flexible Stonewall 207
8 The Aggressive Stonewall 231
9 Move Orders 251
10 1.c4 & 1.¤f3 287
11 Exercises 309

Variation Index 316

Game Index 321
 Preface
Back in 2002, as a young and ambitious international master, I got into a huge competitive crisis.
For a period of about a year I was unable to break above the 2450 rating level and was generally
dissatisfied with my chess. I felt that I needed some changes, especially in my opening repertoire.
What bothered me the most was how to play against 1.d4. Back then I was playing the King’s
Indian and Slav Defences, but I was not completely satisfied with either of them. In the King’s
Indian, I felt ‘suffocated’ due to the lack of space, while in the Slav I was bothered by the prospect
of the Exchange Variation against weaker opponents, and so I found it to be a slightly passive
opening. During that time I was constantly thinking about which openings I should add to my
repertoire as Black. I went to my good friend Jovan Todorovic, an international master and a
renowned coach in Serbia, and asked him to help me escape from the rut I was in.

When Jovan recommended a switch to the Stonewall Dutch against 1.d4, it came as an unpleasant
surprise! How could he seriously suggest that I make a gaping hole on the e5-square while blocking
the c8-bishop with my own pawns? At first I rejected the proposal but, on Jovan’s insistence,
I agreed to check a few ideas from strong players such as Predrag Nikolic, Artur Yusupov, Evgeny
Gleizerov and Mikhail Ulybin. As I looked through their games, my opinion on the Stonewall
began to change. In addition to seizing plenty of space at an early stage, the opening often
leads to rich positions offering good chances to play for a win. Black has a variety of options in
different areas of the board, and the game often becomes unbalanced. The “bad” light-squared
bishop often finds its way into the game by means of ...¥d7-e8-h5, or ...b6 followed by ...¥b7
or ...¥a6. Moreover, this bishop often plays a more active role in the game than its supposedly
“good” counterpart, which sits on g2 and stares into a solid barrier of black pawns. The black king
seldom comes under attack, as the Stonewall formation controls plenty of space and Black’s pieces
develop naturally to posts where they control plenty of important squares. Rather, it is Black who
is more likely to develop attacking chances on the kingside, with ideas like ..g5 and ...f4 in the air,
as well as a possible rook lift with ...¦f6-h6. It also came to my attention that White cannot force
a quick perpetual check or easily simplify to a dead equal endgame, which I particularly liked.

Full of energy and enthusiasm, I started to prepare and work on my new weapon. At my next
tournament, I already started to use my soon-to-be-favourite opening with great success. Over
the next year I improved the quality of my play, and was rewarded with improved tournament
results along with the Grandmaster title. Thus, I remain extremely grateful to my friend Jovan
for his selfless help and support. To this day, the Stonewall remains one of my favourite and most
trusted weapons.

Many chess legends and other strong grandmasters have contributed to the development of
the Stonewall: among them, Mikhail Botvinnik, Evgeny Bareev, Nigel Short, Alexei Dreev,
Artur Yusupov, Simen Agdestein (the former coach of Magnus Carlsen), Viktor Moskalenko,
6 Playing the Stonewall Dutch

Evgeny Gleizerov and Mikhail Ulybin all come to mind. Other noteworthy names include
Teimour Radjabov, winner of last year’s World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk, as well as World
Champion Magnus Carlsen, who has used the Stonewall with great success against Anand and
Caruana, among others.

A final important point concerns the influence of computers on opening preparation. The
Stonewall offers a solid, stable pawn structure and usually results in a semi-blocked middlegame
position, making it quite resistant to the kind of deeply forcing, concrete opening preparation
which has become increasingly prevalent in the engine era. Of course there are certain variations
where some specific knowledge is needed – but compared with many openings, succeeding with
the Stonewall depends much more on positional understanding and knowledge of plans than on
memorizing long variations. On a related note, it is rare that a single mistake from Black will have
dire consequences. In light of all this, dear readers, I wholeheartedly recommend that you learn
the Stonewall and start playing this opening without any fear!

The material in this book is presented using a combination of variation trees and complete games.
The tree format provides valuable structure to each chapter, helping the reader (not to mention
the author!) to keep track of the various lines. At the same time, complete games are helpful in
showing thematic plans and ideas in the middlegame, and even the endgame in some cases. This
is especially important for an opening such as the Stonewall, since the pawn structure tends to be
relatively static for much of the game, so a good understanding of typical plans will go a long way.
Naturally, the emphasis on complete games and middlegame plans has not come at the expense of
theoretical rigour – I have presented many important novelties and move-order subtleties, many
of which I was unaware of myself before working on this book.

I sincerely hope that my knowledge and experience of the Stonewall, combined with the hard
work that went into this project, will prove to be of genuine value in helping the readers to
improve their understanding, technique and results in this opening.

Nikola Sedlak
Subotica, Serbia
May 2020
 
 
  
  

Chapter 5   
   
p  
+ +
n 


7.b3
Variation Index
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3 c6 6.0–0 ¥d6 7.b3 £e7

A) 8.a4 Game 16 120

B) 8.¥b2 0–0 123

B1) 9.£c1 b5!? 124
B11) 10.¥a3 125
B12) 10.¤bd2 Game 17 127
B13) 10.¤a3!? Game 18 130
B2) 9.¤bd2 b6 10.¤e5 ¥b7 11.¦c1 a5 12.e3 ¤a6! 134
B21) 13.£e2 135
B22) 13.¤b1!? Game 19 136

C) 8.¤e5 0–0 140

C1) 9.£c2!? 142
C2) 9.¤d2 Game 20 145
C3) 9.¥f4 Game 21 149
C4) 9.¥b2 b6 10.cxd5 152
C41) 10...exd5!? 152
C42) 10...cxd5 Game 22 154
120 Playing the Stonewall Dutch

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3 c6 This radical way of insisting on ¥a3 comes
6.0–0 ¥d6 7.b3 with an obvious drawback, namely the
This has been White’s most popular choice weakening of the b4-square. Practice has shown
by a wide margin. Straight away White creates that the resulting positions are not dangerous
a positional threat of ¥a3 to trade the dark- for Black and nowadays it is rarely seen.
squared bishop, so Black’s next move is an
automatic choice. 8...a5!
Obviously we should prevent any further
7...£e7 expansion on the queenside while securing the
Now we have a major branching point, with b4-outpost for the knight.
A) 8.a4, B) 8.¥b2 and C) 8.¤e5 all requiring
attention. 9.¥a3 ¥xa3 10.¤xa3 0–0 11.¤c2
White’s idea is to manoeuvre his knight via
A) 8.a4 e1 to d3, where it eyes the key e5-square.

GAME 16 11.£c2 has also been tested at a high level,

but after a few natural moves Black equalized
Svetozar Gligoric – Vladimir Tukmakov without any trouble. 11...¤a6 12.¤e5 ¤b4
13.£b2 ¤d7!= By trading off the active knight
Palma de Mallorca 1989 on e5, Black solved all his opening problems in
Novikov – Dreev Manila (ol) 1992.
1.d4 e6
The game actually started 1...f5 2.g3 ¤f6 
3.¥g2 e6 4.¤f3 d5 5.0–0 ¥d6 6.c4 c6.  
2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3 c6 6.0–0   
¥d6   
Having played our standard sequence, we re-
join the game.   
  
7.b3 £e7 8.a4
   
   
     
   
11...b6 12.¤ce1 ¥b7 13.¤d3 ¤a6 14.£c1!?
   This move is somewhat unusual, yet at the
   same time a typical idea in such positions. The
queen goes to b2 in order to gain better control
   of the e5-square. Obviously the queen could
   move to c2 or d2 with the same idea in mind.

  14.¤fe5 is a natural move but 14...c5 15.e3

 ¤b4= gives Black a comfortable game. There is
 Chapter 5 – 7.b3 121

no reason to fear 16.¤xb4 axb4 because Black


has gained space on the queenside, as well as a   
potential outpost on c3 which his knight may
use later.
  
  
14.cxd5 gives Black a typical choice between   
two equally valid recaptures. 14...exd5!?N
is more to my taste. (14...cxd5 is perfectly   
reasonable, and 15.£d2 ¤e4 16.£b2 ¤b4  
17.¤fe5 ¥a6 was level in Ghaem Maghami
– Reefat, Kelamabakkam 2000) 15.¤fe5
  
c5 16.e3 ¤b4= Here too the position is    
balanced, but the asymmetrical pawn structure
should offer more chances to play for a

15...¤e4
win. This natural-looking move is not exactly a
mistake, but it would not be my first choice.
14.¦c1 has been White’s most popular 15...¦ac8!N brings another piece into play,
continuation, but after 14...c5 15.cxd5 exd5 and after 16.¦ac1 dxc4! 17.bxc4 ¤b4„ Black
there is no essential difference to the main obtains a lot of activity, with ...¦fd8 coming
game, because White should play: next.

   16.¤fe5 ¦fd8 17.e3 ¦ac8 18.¦fd1 ¤b4
   19.¤f4
    19.¦ac1 was played in a subsequent game,
when 19...dxc4!N (rather than 19...cxd4?
   20.exd4 ¤xd3 21.¤xd3 £f6 22.f3 ¤g5 23.c5±
    as seen in Rangel – Borensztajn, Rio de Janeiro
  2014) 20.bxc4 ¦d6 21.¤f4 ¦cd8= would have
   been fine for Black.
  
It seems to me that 19.¤xb4!N would have been
 a better bet for White. For instance: 19...cxb4
16.£d2 ¤e4 17.£b2 White simply doesn’t
(19...axb4? is worse in view of 20.¥xe4 fxe4
have a better place for the queen. 17...¦ac8
21.a5 bxa5 22.¦xa5±) 20.¥xe4!? fxe4 21.¦ac1
18.¦fd1 ¤b4 19.¤fe5 ¦c7!? 20.e3 ¦fc8=
Black had a lot of activity in Atalik – Bany, 
Istanbul 1988.   
  
14...c5!    
All of Black’s minor pieces are optimally
placed, so there is no better moment for this
   
thematic move.  
   
15.£b2     
   

122 Playing the Stonewall Dutch

I regard the position as strategically risky for there is a concrete threat which he presumably
Black, even though engines evaluate it as equal. overlooked.
White has the simple plan of ¦c2 and ¦dc1
followed by exchanging all the rooks, after

which the well-known cooperation between    
queen and knight may come into effect.  
    
      
     
       
      
     
    
    24...¤xe5! 25.dxe5 ¦xd2 26.¦xd2 ¦xd2
    27.£xd2 ¥c6–+
Simply winning the a4-pawn, which will
 leave Black with a mighty outside passed pawn.
19...dxc4!
An excellent decision! With this changing 28.e4
of the structure, Black gets a clear plan of Defending the pawn with 28.£d1 is useless
attacking along the d-file, as well as a clear due to 28...£d7, so White must aim for
diagonal for his bishop. counterplay and hope for the best.

20.bxc4 ¦d6 21.f3?! 28...¥xa4 29.exf5 £d7!

White unnecessarily weakens his king. Well calculated by Tukmakov. 29...exf5
21.¦ac1 ¦cd8 22.£a1= would have kept the should also work, but the game continuation
position balanced. kills all White’s counterplay.

21...¤f6 22.¦d2 ¦cd8 23.¦ad1 ¤d7!


Black will have one less worry after    
eliminating White’s biggest asset, namely the   
knight on e5.
   
24.h4?    
White should have preferred 24.¤fd3 ¤xd3
25.¤xd3 ¥c6 26.£a3³ when Black is certainly
  
more comfortable, but White remains solid    
and is only marginally worse.
   
In general it’s a good idea for White to stabilize     
the knight on f4 and to gain space, but here 
 Chapter 5 – 7.b3 123

30.£e1 9.£c1!
The point of Black’s previous move is revealed 9.¤bd2 ¥b7 10.¤e5 0–0 11.¦c1 a5
after 30.£xd7 ¥xd7 31.fxe6 ¥xe6! 32.¤xe6 transposes to variation B2 on page 134.
a4–+ when the a-pawn is unstoppable. The main point of Black’s move order
is to meet 9.¤e5 with 9...¥b7, and if
30...£d1! 31.£xd1 ¥xd1 10.cxd5 (10.¤d2 0–0 11.¦c1 a5 is another
The rest of the game was essentially just a transposition to variation B2) 10...cxd5!=
delaying of White’s resignation. White does not have the ¤c4 trick that we
will see in variation C42, because ...¥b7
32.fxe6 a4 33.¤d5 a3 34.e7 ¢f7 35.¥h3 has been played in time. A good example
¤xd5 36.cxd5 a2 37.d6 a1=£ continued 11.£c1 0–0 12.¥a3 ¥a6
0–1 13.¥xd6 £xd6 14.¦e1 ¦c8 15.£a3 £xa3
B) 8.¥b2 16.¤xa3 ¤c6 17.¤xc6 ¦xc6 18.¦ac1 ¦ac8
19.¦xc6 ¦xc6 20.e3 g5! when Black was
 dominating and White soon collapsed in
  Brkic – Kovacevic, Rijeka 2001.
   9...¥b7 10.¥a3
I am not a big fan of this position. I would
   not go so far as to say that White is definitely
   better, but I don’t see much potential to
play for a win with Black. A good example
    involving two strong GMs continued:
   
    
  
    
   
Surprisingly, this natural move already opens
up a debate about Black’s best move order.
   
  
8...0–0  
I tend to favour this natural move. Some   
strong players take a different view, based 
on the fact that the text move allows 9.¤e5. 10...¥xa3
However, White could have brought about the Perhaps Black should maintain the
same position by starting with 8.¤e5, and I tension with 10...0–0 or 10...¤bd7, as
don’t consider the resulting position to be a recommended by JBA. Still, after 11.¥xd6
problem anyway, so I see no special reason to followed by 12.¦d1 White’s position seems
avoid it here. marginally more pleasant to me.
11.£xa3 ¤bd7 12.cxd5 £xa3 13.¤xa3
Many strong players have preferred:
exd5 14.¦fc1 a5 15.¤c2 ¤e4 16.¤ce1 ¢e7
8...b6!?
17.¤d3 ¦hc8 18.¦c2 c5 19.¦ac1 a4 20.¥h3
However, it seems to me that White gets a
g6 21.g4
pleasant game with:
124 Playing the Stonewall Dutch

White went on to win a fine game in White may also opt for a completely different
E. Hansen – Lenderman, Montevideo 2015. type of position with 10.c5 ¥c7, when he
Overall I would say that 8...b6!? is certainly closes the position in the hope of exploiting
playable, but the plan of £c1 followed by his space advantage. 11.b4 (11.¤e5 enables
¥a3 leads to a fairly quiet position where Black to activate his light-squared bishop with
Black has yet to equalize fully. By contrast, 11...b4!? 12.a3 bxa3 13.¤xa3 a5 14.¤c2 ¥a6
my recommended move enables Black to meet 15.£e3 ¥b5 with a good game, as occurred in
White’s plan in a more active manner. Roeder – Moskalenko, Balassagyarmat 1990)
In this section we will analyse B1) 9.£c1 11...a5 12.a3 ¤bd7
and B2) 9.¤bd2. 
As mentioned earlier, 9.¤e5 is an important  
option, and it will be covered under the 8.¤e5
0–0 9.¥b2 move order in variation C4 on
  
page 152.   
 
B1) 9.£c1     
    
    
     

   13.¤e5 Otherwise Black plays ...e5. 13...¤xe5
   14.dxe5 ¤g4 15.f4 ¥d7 16.h3 ¤h6 17.¤d2
g5= Kanakaris – Goritsas, Katakolo 2009.
   
   10.¤e5
  This is a popular choice but it is likely to
transpose to one of the lines analysed below.
   10...bxc4 11.bxc4 ¥a6 12.¥a3
 12.¤d2 leads straight to variation B12
below, while 12.¤a3 transposes to variation
I recommend meeting this thematic move
with: B13.
12...¤fd7 13.¥xd6 £xd6 14.¤xd7 ¤xd7
9...b5!? 
This method of gaining space on the   
queenside leads to much more interesting   
positions compared with the 8...b6 9.£c1 line  
mentioned in the note above.
  
We will cover three options in detail. White    
may proceed with B11) 10.¥a3 anyway,     
develop naturally with B12) 10.¤bd2, or try  
the rare B13) 10.¤a3!?, which also deserves   
attention.

 Chapter 5 – 7.b3 125

White has achieved her aim of trading


dark-squared bishops but has spent a lot of   
time doing it, and Black’s remaining bishop   
has found a good home.  
15.£a3 £xa3 16.¤xa3 ¤b6 17.cxd5 cxd5   
18.¦fc1 ¦fc8 19.¥f1 ¢f7 20.e3 ¥xf1 21.¢xf1
¢e7=
   
The endgame was level in Galojan – Hoang    
Thanh Trang, Chakvi 2015.   
  
B11) 10.¥a3 
 15.¤d3 c5 This was Garcia Paolicchi – Rivas
  Pastor, Thessaloniki (ol) 1988, and now
16.e3!N² would have left Black with a nagging
    disadvantage due to the weird placement of
   the knight on a6. In similar positions Black
usually has a pawn on b6, which would be
  more desirable, as Black would then be able
    to meet dxc5 with ...bxc5 and also use the
b4-square for his knight. It is worth adding
   that exchanging central pawns is of no help
  to Black; for example, 16...cxd4 17.exd4 dxc4
   18.¥xb7 £xb7 19.bxc4± and White’s centre
remains strong while the passed b-pawn is not
 dangerous.
This has been played several times, with
White aiming to provoke the ...b4 advance. 11.bxc4 ¥a6 12.¥xd6
12.¤e5 transposes to the 10.¤e5 line in the
10...bxc4! notes above.
This is clearly the best reaction. It is more
important to open the b-file and activate the 12...£xd6
light-squared bishop than to preserve the
dark-squared bishop.

  
10...b4 has been a more common choice but    
11.¥b2 gives White chances for an edge,
for instance: 11...a5 12.a3 ¤a6 13.¤e5  
¥b7 14.axb4 axb4 (14...¤xb4 15.¤c3 ¦fc8   
16.¤a4² was pleasant for White in Van Wely
– Moskalenko, Metz 1990)
   
   
 
  

126 Playing the Stonewall Dutch

13.£a3 16.e3
White’s queen on c1 was more passive than 16.cxd5 cxd5 17.¦c6 ¦b6= is not dangerous
its counterpart on d6, so exchanging them at all.
makes sense.
16...¦b4 17.¥f1
13.¤bd2 ¤bd7 14.¦e1 ¤e4 15.e3 ¦fc8 17.cxd5 is again harmless in view of:
16.c5 £c7 17.£a3 ¥b5 18.¤b3 a5 19.¤c1 17...cxd5 18.¦c6 ¦a4 19.¤b1
¦cb8= gave Black a comfortable position in 
Gabdrakhmanov – Gleizerov, Voronezh 1988.   
A similar position occurred after 13.c5 £c7
  
14.¦e1 ¤bd7 15.£a3 ¥b7 16.¤bd2 a5  
17.¦ab1 ¥a6= in Barus – Gleizerov, Biel 2011.   
   
13...£xa3 14.¤xa3 ¤bd7 15.¦fc1    
Here I found a useful novelty:
  
    
   
   19...¤e4! Black is fine, since 20.¦xe6? runs
into 20...¦c8! 21.¤bd2 ¢f7µ and White loses
  material.
   
      
      
   
       
    
15...¦fb8!N
It is important to create counterplay on the    
open b-file.    
The passive 15...¦fc8?! 16.¦c2 ¢f8 17.e3
¢e7 was played in Muse – Ulybin, Berlin 1995,
   
when White could have caused problems with 
18.¥f1!N, targeting the undefended bishop on 17...¦a4 18.¤b1 ¥xc4
a6. 18...c5 (18...¥b7?! is well met by 19.¦b1 Black can afford to weaken his pawn
¦ab8 20.cxd5± when Black must accept a structure temporarily, as he will soon liquidate
bad pawn structure, because 20...cxd5?? loses the isolated c-pawn.
outright to 21.¦xb7!+–) 19.cxd5 ¥xf1 20.dxe6
¥d3 21.exd7 ¤xd7 22.¦cc1² Black has some 19.¥xc4 ¦xc4 20.¦xc4 dxc4 21.¤a3 c5
compensation for the pawn, but not enough to 22.¤xc4 ¦c8=
claim full equality. With a drawish endgame.
 Chapter 5 – 7.b3 127

B12) 10.¤bd2

  
GAME 17   
 
Arkadi Vul – Evgeny Gleizerov   
  
New Delhi 2009
   
1.¤f3 e6 2.d4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.0–0   
¥d6 6.c4 c6 7.b3 £e7 8.¥b2 0–0 9.£c1    
b5!? 10.¤bd2 
 15.£a3 £xa3 16.¦xa3 ¤e4 17.¦c1 ¦fc8 18.e3
c5= Kokoszczynski – Sedlak, Warsaw 2019.
 
    12.¤e5 ¦c8 13.¤b3?!
Presumably White wanted to transfer the
   knight to a5 or c5, but a more important factor
  is that the c4-pawn is left with insufficient
    protection.

   13.¤d3 is a reasonable move which has been

  played a few times. After 13...¤bd7 14.c5 ¥c7
15.¤f3 Black keeps a good position with:
    
  
Black has tried a few different moves here   
but I like the direct approach seen in the game.
 
10...bxc4!   
Black is not forced to make this exchange,     
but why wait to activate the light-squared   
bishop?  
11.bxc4 ¥a6
   
A while ago I decided to try 11...a5!? before 
putting the bishop on a6, which also makes 15...¤e4N (rather than the weird 15...¤g4?!
some sense. The game continued: 12.a4 ¥a6 as played in Hamitevic – Vlashki, Albena
13.¥a3 ¤bd7 14.¥xd6 £xd6 2012) 16.£c2 ¦ab8 17.¦ab1 g5=

13.£c2 is quite logical, when it is important

for Black to respond with: 13...¤e4!
(13...¤bd7?! 14.£a4 ¥b7 occurred in Sarosi
– Gleizerov, Budapest 1990, when 15.¦fc1!N²
would have been good for White) 14.¤df3
128 Playing the Stonewall Dutch

(14.¤xe4 fxe4 15.¦fc1 ¥xe5 16.dxe5 ¤d7


17.cxd5 cxd5 18.£d1 ¦c4 19.¥d4 ¦ac8=)  
Now we can improve on Black’s play from   
Jozefek – Sosovicka, Lubovnianske Kupele  
2012, by means of:   
    
     
     
     
   
   15.c5 (15.¤c5? ¥xc5 16.dxc5 ¥xc4µ White
    does not have any compensation for a pawn.)
 15...¥c7 16.¦e1 £f7³ With a very comfortable
position for Black. The idea is to organize an
    attack on the kingside with ...f4 or ...£h5,
 while White is stuck on the queenside.
14...¤d7!N 15.¤xd7 £xd7 16.c5 ¥c7
17.¤e1= White intends ¤d3 and f2-f3 with 15.c5 ¥c7 16.£c2 ¦ab8!?
an interesting battle ahead. However, Black Gleizerov, a leading Stonewall expert, aims
has a sound position and has activated his to develop pressure on the queenside.
light-squared bishop, so he is not worse at all. 16...f4!? would be more to my taste, looking
 for chances on the kingside! Both ideas are
  valid and the choice is a matter of taste.

    17.¥c3 ¦b7 18.¦fb1 ¦cb8

  
      
     
     
    
        
    
13...¤bd7 14.¤xd7 ¤xd7?!
Evidently Black wanted to cover the

c5-square but it was not necessary.    

14...£xd7!N would have kept the knight more 19.e3?!
active on f6, with excellent prospects for Black. This move is not only unnecessary, but it
For instance: also weakens White’s light squares, as will be
felt later in the game.
 Chapter 5 – 7.b3 129

It would have been better to improve the 23...¥c4 24.¦bb1 h5 25.a3

knight with 19.¤c1! ¤f6 20.¤d3= when Now it was too late for 25.h4 gxh3 26.¥xh3
White is still solid. h4!µ when White’s king is in big danger.

19...¤f6 20.¤a5? 25...h4?

This was a more serious positional mistake, Black carries out the correct plan but with
allowing the knight to be traded for the the wrong move order.
dark-squared bishop, which is not such a good It was correct to play 25...¤e4!µ first,
piece. followed by ...h4.

20.¤d2 was a better idea, covering the


c4-square, and after 20...g5 21.¦b3 g4 22.¦ab1³    
White’s disadvantage should be manageable.    
20...¥xa5 21.¥xa5 g5!   
I often like this move in the Stonewall!   
Black’s king is safe and the gaining of space
on the kingside can prove useful for attacking
  
purposes, as well as in future endgames. In the     
short term, the main idea is to play ...g4 in
order to secure an outpost for the knight on
  
e4. This plan works especially well when White    
has compromised his pawn structure with e2-
e3, because the f3-square also becomes weak.

26.¦b4?
 White misses his chance to obtain good
    counterplay.

   26.gxh4! was necessary: 26...¤e4 (26...£h7

  27.¥a5 £xh4 28.¥c7!„) 27.¥a5 £xh4
28.¥xe4 fxe4
   
        
        
    
   
     
     
22.¥c3 g4 23.¦b3?!
White appears to have completely lost the
   
thread of the position.    

23.h4! would have been a good prophylactic 29.¥c7! This is a crucial defensive move!
move to prevent a future ...h5-h4. Surprisingly, the forgotten bishop makes
130 Playing the Stonewall Dutch

a dramatic return to the action. 29...¥d3 30...£h7! 31.f4

30.¥xb8! ¦xb1† 31.£xb1 ¥xb1 32.¦xb1= The active 31.£a4!? also cannot save the
Black is unable to realize his material advantage. game after 31...£h3† 32.¢h1 ¦e8! 33.£xc6
 ¢f7 34.¦xa7† ¢f6–+ when the mating threats
decide.
   
    31...gxf3† 32.¢xf3 f4!
The tactics work perfectly for Black, thanks
   to the unfortunately placed queen on c2.
   
      
        
     
        
    
26...h3!–+ 27.¦xc4!?
A good try, but it does not work.    
   
27.¥f1 ¥xf1 28.¢xf1 ¤e4–+ is horrible for
White.
    

27.¥h1 is no better in view of 27...¦xb4 33.¢g2 f3† 34.¢g1 ¦f8 35.¥e1
28.¥xb4 ¦b5–+ followed by ...a5 and ...£b7. 35.¦f1 f2† 36.¢g2 £f5–+ is deadly, so
White desperately tries giving up his queen,
27...hxg2! but there is no fortress in sight.
Black is not interested in taking the exchange,
and instead plays for a mating attack. 35...f2† 36.¥xf2 ¦xf2 37.£xf2 ¤xf2
38.¢xf2 £xh2† 39.¢f3 £h5† 40.¢f2 £f7†
28.¦b4 ¦xb4 29.axb4 ¤e4 30.¢xg2 41.¢e2 £b7 42.¢f3 ¢g7 43.¢e2 ¢g6
 0–1

   
    
  
  
  
    
  
    

 Abridged Variation Index
The Variation Index in the book is 5 pages long. Below is an abridged version giving just the main
variations, not the sub-variations.

Chapter 1 Chapter 5

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3

c6 6.0–0 ¥d6 7.b3 £e7
A) 3.e3!? 22
B) 3.¤f3 24 A) 8.a4 120
C) 3.¤c3 ¤f6 31 B) 8.¥b2 123
C1) 4.e3 31 C) 8.¤e5 140
C2) 4.f3!? 36
C3) 4.¤f3 40 Chapter 6

Chapter 2 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤h3

¥d6! 6.0–0 0–0
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5
A) 7.c5 163
A) 5.¥f4!? 58 B) 7.b3!? 165
B) 5.¤f3 c6 6.0–0 ¥d6 7.¥f4 60 C) 7.¥f4 166
D) 7.¤d2 169
Chapter 3 E) 7.¤c3 172
F) 7.£c2 179
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3
c6 6.0–0 ¥d6 Chapter 7

A) 7.¤bd2 82 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3

B) 7.¤e5 91 ¥d6 6.0–0 0–0!?

Chapter 4 A) 7.c5 208

B) 7.¥f4 214
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3 C) 7.b3 218
c6 6.0–0 ¥d6 7.¤c3 0–0 8.£c2 ¤e4

A) 9.¤xe4?! 108
B) 9.¦b1 109
 Abridged Variation Index

Chapter 8

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.¤f3

¥e7!? 6.0–0 ¤e4!?

A) 7.¤bd2 232
B) 7.£c2!? 233
C) 7.b3 235
D) 7.¤c3 242

Chapter 9

A) 1.d4 e6 2.¤f3 f5 252

A1) 3.¥g5 252
A2) 3.¥f4 253
A3) 3.d5!? 254
A4) 3.h3!? 256
B) 1.d4 f5 260
B1) 2.g3 260
B2) 2.¤h3!? 263
B3) 2.£d3!? 264
B4) 2.h3!? 266
B5) 2.e4!? 267
B6) 2.¤c3 272
B7) 2.¥g5 277

Chapter 10

A) 1.c4 f5 288
A1) 2.e4?! 289
A2) 2.¤c3 292
B) 1.¤f3 f5 294
B1) 2.e4!? 295
B2) 2.d3 296
B3) 2.g3 299