Answers.Body: <p>From the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Attack">Wikipedia article that you linked to:</a></p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The downsides to the Stonewall are the hole on e4, and the fact that the dark squared bishop on c1 is completely blocked by its own pawns. If Black defends correctly against White's attack, these strategic deficiencies can become quite serious. Because of this, the Stonewall Attack is almost never seen in master-level chess any more, although it is seen occasionally among club players. </p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>The problem is that although the fortress may be solid (at least to begin with), White's attacking options are limited by the bad bishop. In addition, by setting up the fortress the initiative is handed to black, who has various options to break down the fortress (generally a good opening for white would keep the initiative). The article suggests:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Black has several ways to meet the Stonewall. One choice which must be made is whether to fianchetto one or both bishops; Black can meet the Stonewall with a ...b6 and ...Ba6 aiming to trade off the dangerous white bishop on d3, and a kingside fianchetto with ...g7-g6 takes away White's idea of attacking h7. An early development of Black's light-squared Bishop to f5 also cuts across White's plans.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Other obvious attacking options for black are to hit the base of the chain with b5 and b4, or to castle queenside and attack on the king side with g5. Setting up a fortress like this often seems strong, but in fact the opposite may be true, and in fact is simply providing "hooks" for the opponent to mount an attack. As also stated in the article</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Black playing the Stonewall Variation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Defense">Dutch Defense</a> is seen occasionally at master level.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>and one could also surmise that such defensive formations are, in general, more appealing from black's perspective.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-08-29T21:04:00.277Z
Answers.Text: While the deficiencies noted here are true, there are ways to mitigate them. The dark-squared bishop can sometimes come out to b2 or a3 after a b2 push. Or it can be re-routed via d2-e1-g3 (or h4). And if black does do a kingside fianchetto, the placing the lightsquared bishop on e2 rather than d3 might prove to be a better square, as is the case with the London System.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Matt Cremeens
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T14:07:34.787Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-05-10T22:15:35.610Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-05-10T22:15:35.610Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: tdc
Answers.Body: <p>The stonewall attack is a powerful and solid opening that prevents black from controlling the center.  Some key points are:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p>White will have control of the dark squares (d4, e3, and f4), so it
  is important to take control of the light squares with his pieces
  (<code>Bd3</code>, <code>Nd2</code>, <code>Nf3</code>, etc)</p></li>
  <li><p>He must also prevent black from playing <code>...e5</code> with a move like <code>f4</code>.  If
  black plays <code>...e5</code>, he can gain space advantage and counterplay in the
  center.</p></li>
  <li>Castle your king early.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>It is an excellent opening for beginners, just remember to take your time with every move.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T13:42:04.573Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-06-12T00:47:04.907Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-06-12T00:47:04.907Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.Body: <p>Learning just about <em>any</em> opening well will improve a beginner's play.</p>
  
  <p>That said, the Stonewall is probably better in this regard than others, because of its strong emphasis on center control.</p>
  
  <p>See <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/251/what-is-the-theory-behind-center-control/253#253">What is the theory behind center control?</a></p>
  
  <p>Another educational advantage of the Stonewall is the "two sided" nature of the opening (robust chances for both sides). The computers don't play it well because of this feature. But that's something that helps a human player improve.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T15:18:21.763Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-06-12T17:25:40.110Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-04-13T12:48:53.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Body: <p>I stumbled upon the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Attack" rel="noreferrer">Stonewall attack</a>, and it looks pretty strong, and I especially like the fact that it is strong against computer programs.</p>
  
  <p>I would like feedback on this attack, and if this is a move I should consider as a beginner in chess to improve my play?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-09T22:13:03.973Z
Comments.Text: possible duplicate of [Is pawns supporting pawns a good opening strategy?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/q/305/86)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T00:53:52.247Z
Comments.Text: @Danielδ How is that a duplicate? The question has absolutely nothing in common really ! Maybe wrong link?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Charles Menguy
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T01:14:26.883Z
Comments.Text: The concept is basically the same, as some of the answers to that question pointed out. However, this is a more specific question than the other.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Eve Freeman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T01:20:07.033Z
Comments.Text: I agree, while the *concept* is the same, this is much more specific and the answers to the other questions are not ansering this question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Charles Menguy
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T02:06:22.717Z
Comments.Text: Y'all could be right - this isn't something I'd fight to the death over.  [+1 to the question](http://meta.chess.stackexchange.com/q/30/86).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-10T15:34:57.017Z
Comments.Text: @Danielδ: Not really a duplicate. This question is a SINGLE application of the other one, which has many more.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Tags: <pawn-structure><stonewall-attack>
Title: What are the advantages of the Stonewall attack?
ThreadText: # What are the advantages of the Stonewall attack?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-09)
  
  I stumbled upon the [Stonewall attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Attack), and it looks pretty strong, and I especially like the fact that it is strong against computer programs.
  
  I would like feedback on this attack, and if this is a move I should consider as a beginner in chess to improve my play?
  
  **Tags:** pawn-structure, stonewall-attack
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: possible duplicate of [Is pawns supporting pawns a good opening strategy?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/q/305/86)  
  > **username_0**: @Danielδ How is that a duplicate? The question has absolutely nothing in common really ! Maybe wrong link?  
  > **username_2**: The concept is basically the same, as some of the answers to that question pointed out. However, this is a more specific question than the other.  
  > **username_0**: I agree, while the *concept* is the same, this is much more specific and the answers to the other questions are not ansering this question.  
  > **username_1**: Y'all could be right - this isn't something I'd fight to the death over.  [+1 to the question](http://meta.chess.stackexchange.com/q/30/86).  
  > **username_3**: @Danielδ: Not really a duplicate. This question is a SINGLE application of the other one, which has many more.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2012-05-10. Score: 12
  
  From the [Wikipedia article that you linked to:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Attack)
  
  > The downsides to the Stonewall are the hole on e4, and the fact that the dark squared bishop on c1 is completely blocked by its own pawns. If Black defends correctly against White's attack, these strategic deficiencies can become quite serious. Because of this, the Stonewall Attack is almost never seen in master-level chess any more, although it is seen occasionally among club players.
  
  The problem is that although the fortress may be solid (at least to begin with), White's attacking options are limited by the bad bishop. In addition, by setting up the fortress the initiative is handed to black, who has various options to break down the fortress (generally a good opening for white would keep the initiative). The article suggests:
  
  > Black has several ways to meet the Stonewall. One choice which must be made is whether to fianchetto one or both bishops; Black can meet the Stonewall with a ...b6 and ...Ba6 aiming to trade off the dangerous white bishop on d3, and a kingside fianchetto with ...g7-g6 takes away White's idea of attacking h7. An early development of Black's light-squared Bishop to f5 also cuts across White's plans.
  
  Other obvious attacking options for black are to hit the base of the chain with b5 and b4, or to castle queenside and attack on the king side with g5. Setting up a fortress like this often seems strong, but in fact the opposite may be true, and in fact is simply providing "hooks" for the opponent to mount an attack. As also stated in the article
  
  > Black playing the Stonewall Variation of the [Dutch Defense](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Defense) is seen occasionally at master level.
  
  and one could also surmise that such defensive formations are, in general, more appealing from black's perspective.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: While the deficiencies noted here are true, there are ways to mitigate them. The dark-squared bishop can sometimes come out to b2 or a3 after a b2 push. Or it can be re-routed via d2-e1-g3 (or h4). And if black does do a kingside fianchetto, the placing the lightsquared bishop on e2 rather than d3 might prove to be a better square, as is the case with the London System.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2012-05-10. Score: 6
  
  The stonewall attack is a powerful and solid opening that prevents black from controlling the center. Some key points are:
  
  1. White will have control of the dark squares (d4, e3, and f4), so it
     is important to take control of the light squares with his pieces
     (`Bd3`, `Nd2`, `Nf3`, etc)
  2. He must also prevent black from playing `...e5` with a move like `f4`. If
     black plays `...e5`, he can gain space advantage and counterplay in the
     center.
  3. Castle your king early.
  
  It is an excellent opening for beginners, just remember to take your time with every move.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2012-05-10. Score: 4
  
  Learning just about *any* opening well will improve a beginner's play.
  
  That said, the Stonewall is probably better in this regard than others, because of its strong emphasis on center control.
  
  See [What is the theory behind center control?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/251/what-is-the-theory-behind-center-control/253#253)
  
  Another educational advantage of the Stonewall is the "two sided" nature of the opening (robust chances for both sides). The computers don't play it well because of this feature. But that's something that helps a human player improve.
  
  
  ---
  
  