What can Veeky Forums tell me about this opening? Good or not?

>white opens with a special snowflake move with the impression that that's gonna mind-fuck black into a blunder
White opens with a pretty standard move, in some circles if you open with the King's Pawn you'll ALWAYS get a fucking Sicilian and he might not be up for it AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN

>in some circles if you open with the King's Pawn you'll ALWAYS get a fucking Sicilian

Ruy Lopez gets old fast too, but at least it's easier to prevent that (Petrov's Defense being a good way). Once you move 1. e4, be prepared for the dipstick on the other side of the board to move 1...c5.

The Sicilian is probably too complicated for most amateur players anyway (some variations can be as long as 20 moves), problem is everyone wants to use the same openings as GMs.

There's also the Staunton Gambit (2. e4 fxe4) which is a further nuisance for Black by offering a gambit pawn he can't reject and which is costly to take.

The Dutch Defense is like the Scandinavian Defense, a dubious opening that's never quite been refuted.

Hmm.
Theoretically it's not a good move, because it exposes your king early on, I guess. You're also not really opening up any space for other pieces with that move.

>You're also not really opening up any space for other pieces with that move

You do however get the plus of the knight developing behind instead of in front of the f pawn.

True. I'm okay at chess, and I'm not familiar with a lot of the terminology. No one plays around me.

It just strikes me that your immediate goal should be to give yourself as many options early on. This strikes me as a second to fifth round move.

You also want to restrict your opponent's options. White, after playing d4, would really like to play e4 too, get a lock on the center. Black only has 3 moves that can stop it, d5, f5, and Nf6. Nf6 obviously blocks the f pawn, and if you play d5 first, you don't want to play f5 later, as that leaves an ugly hole on e5 that you can no longer cover with pawns and is just begging White to stick a knight in there. If you're going to play f5, you kind of have to do it on the first turn.

This is sort of the idea behind a number of openings that involve advancing the c and f pawns prior to moving the knights out.

One simple reason the Dutch isn't stronger than the Sicilian is this:

With 1... c5, you're keeping White from establishing a pawn center with d2-d4, and the only cost is a small lag in development. White has no intention of playing an early f2-f4 as it is committal and sometime weakening.

With 1... f5, you're making a rather committal move in order to prevent White's e2-e4 when White can play c2-c4 which is almost as useful.

You see what I mean?

The Dutch Defense (classical, not Stonewall) is better than its reputation BUT you do run some risk by advancing the f pawn and exposing your king, a problem the Sicilian doesn't suffer from since 1...c5 doesn't put the king in any danger at all. That's why the Bird's Opening and King's Gambit are a lot crazier than the Queen's Gambit and English Opening.

It's not a bad opening, but it is kinda risky. In most Scheveningen type structures Black is better in an endgame due to their two center pawns and how most lines go, whereas that isn't a static feature of most Dutch positions.

I like the Dutch enough to play it in tournament games from time to time, but never wanted to play Stonewall... Sure it entails enormous risk, but for some reason I prefer this kind of risk to Sicilian risk.
There are, however, two problems with Dutch. One is sidelines. For example 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 virtually forces 2...d5 (or 2...Nf6 3.Bg5 d5) and White has pleasant game without even bothering to learn theory.
The second problem is that Dutch seems "an orphan opening" - meaning that it is difficult to apply lessons learned there to other openings. (i.e you can play ...f5 in Queen's Indian. but you don't normally play ...b6 in Dutch, so it is a completely different structure)

I think Magnus Carlsen said it best.
Flank attack openings offer the greatest attacking chances. However, they often suffer from positional weaknesses.
The Dutch Defense is considered a risky opening.
Most elite GMs don't consider it very reliable.
Oftentimes you will see high levels play it when they are really looking for a win.
Most prefer to play something more stable.
The Dutch Defense has its issues.
The thing you have to take into consideration when judging whether or not to play the Dutch Defense is based on your ranking level and your opponent's ranking level.
If you are playing in a ranking range of 1700 or below.
Than playing this sort of opening really will not matter.
The issues which the Dutch face will always be present.
However, If your opponent isn't strong enough as a chess player yet.
Than they may not know how to exploit those issues.
Which is to say most people below 1700 may not exploit the issues very well.
On the other hand if you start facing people above 1700 than you may decide to change your opening etc.
As you get stronger in ranking level.
The margin of error becomes lower.
Thus, small tiny weakness become more game changing problems

When asked once why Russians were so addicted to chess, Garry Kasparov replied "There's nothing else to do in Russia."

That is true, but it's also been suggested that during the Soviet era, the chessboard was one of the few places in a regimented society where people were allowed to be creative and express themselves.

It's the only pastime they can do while squating?

Since this is a chess thread, I guess I'll enter with a question of my own:

I've played chess casually for a while now, and I've been meaning to play it at an amateur level because it seems quite interesting. I've picked up Mihail Marin's Secrets of Chess Defence from my local library, which is... decent, I reckon, but for the life of me I cannot find something to help me develop the bases of chess playing beyond the casual level. Could any of you lot help me?