Stonewall

The Stonewall structure often arises from the Dutch Defence, the Slav or the Catalan, the first being the most common. It could also occur with reversed colours, but this is relatively rare. Of all the pawn structures we study in this book, the Stonewall has one of the worst reputations. Players from a wide range of levels would say the idea of playing ... d7-d5 together with ... f7- f5 is positionally unsound. There is partial merit to this claim, as the e5-square becomes permanently vulnerable. Whether this vulnerable square actually becomes a serious weakness often determines whether Black's position is good or not. To be honest, I myself considered the Stonewall to be a relatively bad structure until I started researching it in orderto write this chapter. In fact, I originally wanted to make this chapter a manual on how to defeat this pawn structure. After a substantial amount of work I gave up on this aim, and instead decided to accept that the Stonewall is a solid system which deserves serious consideration. I hope this chapter will be enough to convince the reader that this is the case.

Then why does the Stonewall have a bad reputation?

I believe this is the effect of two types of observational bias:

I. White's wins in the Stonewall are often visually pleasing and positionally convincing. They are likely to be used as examples in strategy books. This decision unintentionally conveys the idea that the Stonewall is positionally incorrect. 2. Black's wins are often based on tactical resources of some sort, hence they can often be considered "accidental" rather than meritorious. Many players (including myself before writing this chapter) would skip those games without further study, simply thinking: "Black was just lucky, this will not happen to me."

Personally I was surprised on checking my database to realize that among IM and GM level games, White only scores about 54% with the openings presented in this chapter. This is basically a standard result, nothing special. Hence, statistically the Stonewall is slightly inferior, but no worse than many well-respected systems.

OK, that is enough defending the Stonewall, now let's discuss typical plans.

White's plans :

1. Obtaining firm control of the e5-square; placing a knight on this square.

2. Trade dark-squared bishops to further weaken Black's dark squares.

3. Expand on the queenside or open the c-file at a favourable stage and pursue an invasion down this open file.

Black's plans :

1. Create a kingside attack, but without completely losing control of the central squares.

2. I mprove the bad bishop with the manoeuvre ... .itd7-e8-h5 or sometimes ... b7-b6 followed by ... .lta6.

3. Create central tension with ... b7-b6 followed by ... c6-c5.

Before proceeding, I would like to clarify Black's plans somewhat. First, for Black's Plan 1 to succeed, the control of the central squares is essential. If White has undisputed control of the e5-square, then most of Black's attacking attempts will fail. A healthy attack for Black will keep a balance between fighting for the e5-square and advancing on the kingside. Black's Plan 2 is important and useful, but not always necessary. Black can find a good position even with his bishop on the humble d7-square. Finally, Black's Plans 1 and 3 should certainly not be combined. The point of Plan 1 is that the Stonewall creates a solid central structure, making a flank attack feasible. The attack would probably fail if the move ... c6-c5 had already been played. This chapter begins by showing one short example of White's dream position in the Stonewall, simply to illustrate everything Black should fight to avoid. The second and third games are examples of White's successful strategy, controlling the centre and keeping Black without counterplay. The last three games in the chapter illustrate Black's ideas for counterplay by showcasing Black's Plans 1, 2 and 3 in that order.