Book Review: Moskalenko on the Dutch
![Date Date](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Viktor Moskalenko, The Diamond Dutch: Strategic Ideas & Powerful Weapons (New in Chess, 2014). 271 pp., $29.95/ €26.95. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.
[N.B. This review will soon be published in Chess Today as well, but as both Chess Today and the publishers independently sent me copies of the book (and I don't even play the Dutch!) it seemed appropriate to post it here as well.]
Viktor Moskalenko has written some of the most interesting opening books over the past six years or so, and he’s showing no signs of letting up. He is a very entertaining writer, but more importantly, his creativity is not restricted to his writing; he is a creative contributor to the theory of the openings he writes about. After books on the Budapest Gambit, the French and the Pirc (plus a book on method that included some interesting opening analysis) he turns his attention to the Dutch.
Remarkably, he covers all three major branches of the Dutch: the Stonewall (characterized by Black pawns on c6, d5, e6 and f5), the Classical (sometimes called the Ilyin-Zhenevsky, which arises with Black’s center pawns on d6 and e6), and the Leningrad (Black plays …d6 and fianchettos the king’s bishop). There is also a substantial chapter on various anti-Dutch lines like the Staunton Gambit, the Improved Lisitsyn Gambit (and its unimproved namesake) and some minor lines before paying more careful attention to 2.Nc3 and 2.Bg5.
One really gets a bit of everything, and this benefits both sides. Dutch slayers get to see the spread of options and may find something they like, and Moskalenko offers them some specific repertoire choices as well. Those who play or adopt the Dutch benefit even more. They’ll learn the full range of options available to them, which offers them some variety. Moreover, there are possibilities for one Dutch line to transmogrify into another (in particular, the Classical structure can become either a Stonewall or a Leningrad, or at least akin to them), so they will be able to handle the transitions.
Moskalenko makes the book as user-friendly as possible, with little stories, highlighted tactics, transpositional subtleties and other helpful tidbits that help the reader orient himself to what’s important and to interesting and original ideas. His preferred format is the complete game model, but he doesn’t waste space covering the post-theoretical part of the game in great detail. Each chapter has a substantial introduction, and Moskalenko is quite “talky” in general, which is very helpful to the reader orienting his way around this opening.
So there is a lot to like about the book’s format. What about the content? As the author is a solid professional who plays both sides of the Dutch, one would expect good things. He doesn’t mention the recent White repertoire books by Schandorff, Kaufman or Watson, so I decided to have a look to see what he offers against their suggestions. In the interest of space I’ll only make comparisons with the last two authors’ works.
Let’s start with Watson and his recommendation of 2.Nc3. Moskalenko examines both 2…Nf6 and 2…d5 in some detail, and seems at the end to prefer 2…Nf6. Watson meets this with 3.Bf4, which is much less usual than 3.Bg5 – so unusual, in fact, that Moskalenko doesn’t cover it. It’s an odd-looking move and seemingly out of the spirit of 2.Nc3. The point is that White meets 2…Nf6 with 3.Bg5, aiming to swap on f6 and harm Black’s pawn structure, while if 2…d5 White then plays 3.Bf4 now that the diagonal is open. So 2…Nf6 3.Bf4 seems clueless at first glance (assuming of course that Black doesn’t play 3…d5), but Watson has some interesting ideas. A small bibliographical omission here, but one that may be relevant at the club level where Watson is especially popular.
On now to Kaufman and 2.Bg5. (This is also Schandorff’s recommendation.) Moskalenko’s chapter conclusion suggests the following: French and Stonewall players should play 1…e6, Leningrad players should use 2…g6, and the risky line 2…h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 is playable for Black after 4…Bg7 and 4…Nf6, but he has his doubts about 4…Rh7. Let’s see how his conclusions about 2…h6 and 2…g6 fare against Schandorff and Kaufman. On 2…h6, Kaufman prefers 3.Bh4 g5 4.e3, and now both Kaufman and Moskalenko continue 4…Nf6 5.Bg3 d6 6.h4 Rg8 7.hxg5 hxg5 8.Nc3 e6 before their move-orders vary. Moskalenko, citing Kasparov-Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1996, continues 9.f3 Qe7 10.Qd2 Nc6 11.0-0-0 Bd7 12.e4, while Kaufman’s move order is 9.Qd2 Qe7 10.0-0-0 Nc6 11.f3 Bd7 12.e4. Kaufman stops here (without citing the game) and writes that “White’s development, pawn center, and control of the open file give him a clear advantage”. Moskalenko disagrees, continuing 12…fxe4(“!”) 13.fxe4 0-0-0 and says that while “White still has some pressure”, it can be said that “in general Black has solved his main problem (his king’s position) and he has also consolidated his troops.” Illescas had to suffer a while, but he drew his prestigious opponent.
However, Moskalenko likes 9.Qd2, and after 9…Qe7 10.0-0-0 Nc6 suggests that White can try 11.Bc4 instead of 11.f3, threatening d5. He examines 10…a6 in some depth, suggesting that White has an edge in the game Gurevich-Illescas, Sanxeno tt 2004 although Black in turn might improve with 17…Qf7, with the idea 18.Nh3 Be7.
Now to 2…g6. Their primary intersection point comes after 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.h4 h6 5.Bf4 Nf6 6.e3 d6 7.Qf3 0-0 8.Bc4+ e6 9.Nge2. Kaufman stops here, writing that “White has more active pieces and can choose to castle on either side with a safer king in either case”. Moskalenko appreciates the danger here and thinks 8.Bc4+ is a “weapon”, as opposed to 8.0-0-0 as he himself unsuccessfully played against Bonafede in Hoogeveen 2010. His analysis (after 9.Nge2) continues 9…Nc6 10.a3, and now he suggests 10…Qe8 as an improvement over 10…Kh7?, played in Fressinet-Kindermann, Bundesliga 2002. The problem with the latter move was 11.Bg5!, allowing the “useless” bishop to re-employ and then swap on f6.
Another important sideline arises against the Leningrad Dutch: 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.Bf4, used by Armenian players like Hrant Melkumyan and, most prominently, Levon Aronian. White’s best, as given by Moskalenko, is 5…d6 6.e3 Nc6 7.Be2 0-0 8.Bg3 h6 9.0-0 Nh5 (Aronian-Kamsky, St. Louis 2013) 10.Bh4! g5 11.d5! Na5 12.Nd4, with a slight advantage for White according to Alejandro Ramirez, writing on Chessbase.com. Good for White, but what is Black to do? (Perhaps play the Stonewall instead, which is Moskalenko’s preferred Dutch.)
Anyway, the book is a fascinating collection of analyses of the Dutch Defense, and I can’t imagine why any Dutch player would want to do without it. More attention to repertoire books and the potentially important and influential line used by Aronian would have improved the work, I think, but it’s highly recommended all the same.
![Tag Tag](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Tag Tag](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Category Category](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Category Category](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Reader Comments (3)
Very informative and interesting book reviews and notices. Thanks for writing them, I always enjoy reading them.
Moskalenko's new Dutch book is a gold mine. Thank you for your usual indepth review. I've played the Dutch off and on, and have done my share of suffering with it, so now I study the Dutch more than I play it! Anyway, I've reviewed the Kaufmann/Schandorff/Watson/Burgess (Burgess - 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 h3) anti-Dutch repertoire offerings when these books came out months ago, and with a lot of Houdini help I think I've worked out solutions to the problems posed by by these authors.
Here I'll only mention two of the issues mentioned in your review in reference to Kaufmann/Schandorff and the Aronian side line. After 1 d4 f5 2 Bg5 g6 (leaving aside 2...h6, etc.) 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 h4, I like 4...d6! with the idea of 5 e3 Nc6. This order seems to make Qf3 setups by White dubious because Black hasn't played ...Nf6 yet, which gives him extra options, for example: 6 Qf3?! h6 7 Bf4 e5! (the point) 8 de5 de5 and Black stands very well (=+). Just one illustrative variation is 9 Rd1 Bd7 10 Bh2 Nf6 11 Bc4 Qe7 12 Qg3 g5! 13 hg5 hg5 14 Qxg5 0-0-0 and Black has a ton of compensation. Going back, we have to consider some alternatives to 5 e3. First is the direct 5 e4. An interesting reply is 5...Nc6 (5...fe4 6 Nxe4 d5 transposes to a main line with the extra h2-h4 thrown in) 6 d5 Ne5 7 ef5 Bxf5 8 Nf3 c6 9 Nxe5 Bxe5 10 Bd3 Qb6 11 Rb1 Bxd3 12 Qxd3 Nf6 13 dc6 bc6! 14 0-0 0-0=. A slower try is 5 Nf3, which can transpose into a Schandorff line after 5...h6 6 Bf4 and now 6...Nc6?! (which came about via 4...Nc6 in Schandorff's book, p. 192.) where Schandorff played 7 e4! to good effect. In the 4...d6! order, after 5 Nf3 h6 6 Bf4 Black can just play 6...Nf6! preventing e2-e4, and be happy 7 e3 e6! with a "Christmas Tree" formation (obscure term from Dangerous Weapons Dutch book).
Re Aronian, after 1 d4 f5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 g6 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 Bf4 d6 6 e3 0-0 7 Be2, Kamsky had problems after 7...Nc6?! 8 Bg3! h6 9 0-0 Nh5 10 Bh4! as you cite. The issue here is that Black's inaccurate 7...Nc6?! gave White time to reroute his bishop effectively. My improvement is 7...Ne4!, which restrains Bg3 (...xg3!), unleashes the B/g7 and thereby threatens an immediate ...e5! without having to prepare it with the slow ...Nc6. Some sample lines:
a) 8 c5 dc5 9 Qb3+ e6 10 Rd1 Qe7 11 0-0 Nc6 12 Nb5 h6 13 Nxc7 g5 14 Nxa8 gf4 15 dc5 Nxc5 16 Qc4 fe3 17 fe3 Ne4;
b) 8 Qc2 Nc6 9 Rd1 Nxc3 10 bc3 Qe8 11 h4 e5 12 Bh2 f4 (or 12...Bf6 13 0-0 e4 14 Nd2 Bxh4 15 c5 dc5 16 Qb3+ Kh8) 13 0-0 fe3 14 fe3 Bg4 15 Rde1 Qd7;
c) 8 Qb3 c5 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Rfd1 Qb6 11 Qc2 (11 Qxb6 ab6 12 Nd5 e5) 11...e5;
d) 8 h4 Nc6 9 Qb3 e5 10 de5 de5 11 Rd1 Qe8 12 Bh2 Nxc3 13 bc3 Bf6;
e) 8 h3 Nc6 9 Bh2 e5 10 0-0 ed4 11 ed4 Nxc3 12 bc3 f4 13 Qd2 Qf6;
f) 8 0-0 Nc6 9 dc5 dc5 10 Nb5 cd4 11 ed4 e5! 12 de5 Qe7 13 Qc1 a6 14 Nc3 Be6 15 Re1 Bf7!.
This is all complicated and fascinating stuff - and I've only scratched the surface. I think the Dutch is an opening with a future. When the engines get done chewing up the main lines of the Nimzo and Grunfeld, the Dutch is there as a very fresh alternative. In passing, did anybody catch what Carlsen said recently about taking up the Dutch because Aronian plays so badly against it?
Thanks again, Dennis.
I concur with Ian above. I have just spent this evening reading all ten pages of book reviews. Keep up the excellent work. I prefer your reviews to Hansen's.