Why the hypermodern school isn't popular?

Hypermodernism goes beyond openings. You can't label a game as hypermodern or classical based on their opening moves. An e4 game may be played in a hypermodern way (prophylaxis, blockade, etc.). Karpov may start a game with d4, but he plays in a hypermodern way (being prophylactic and all). The same goes with Petrosian, who was influenced by Nimzo. Hypermodernism was a complete system designed to challenge Tarrasch's dogma. Nowadays it doesn't matter anymore as people just use whatever that works.

so... why is the OP thinking that it was unpopular?

and the OP still hasn't responded 

In your example ..e5 is played much more than ..e6.  Even on a more fundamental level the Sicilian is not really hypermodern at all.  The move that characterizes it, 1..c5, is a direct attempt to control the center with a pawn. The mainline Najdorf isn't so much about controlling the center as it is about retaining maximum flexibility and giving white no chances to use his early initiative in a dangerous way.  All black has to do is survive the opening and develop all her pieces and she already has a positional edge because of the pawns.  The only hypermodern attempt by black in the Sicilian I'm aware of is the Dragon, especially the Accelerated variations.

The hypermodern and classical styles of play do not stand in opposition to one another like they did almost a century ago; the players of today study both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch.

I think some of today's opening fashions may have a lot to do with engine re-evaluations of various openings. Although hypermodern systems with Nf3-g3-Bg2-d3 and the like may have good results, some engines (such as Stockfish) do not like them.

The Alekhine is significantly less popular than a lot of stuff (French, Sicilian, Caro-Kahn). 

This being said, as wafflemaster noted the debate has grown old.

I would also point out that hypermodernism is (was) not an homogeneous set. You have high cultists like Nimzowitch who are yelling at high cultists form the other side (Tarasch) and some sensitive people who use "hypermodern" openings and concepts because it works (Reti, and Alekhine a bit).

A gross oversimplification is that Tarrasch says after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 that 3.e5 is losing because White lost a tempo moving a pawn for nothing, Nimzowitch comes and say that it's winning precisely because White voluntarily lost a tempo, and the others guys come and try to discuss the positional trade-off space/time but Nimzowitch and Tarrasch's yelling covers their talk.

I see this alot as well... depending on the needs of the situation. I use that "mix and match" approach as well makes for interesting games.

In general its best to try out different openings and find those openings that fit your style. Hypermodern chess is dynamic and agressive and some players just don't like that style of play.

Clearly this a potato versus po(tau)to debate, with the emphasis on pronunciation.

"Her" plans and "her" pieces?  I think you've been studying Polgar games too much.  She is a Najdorf player so it makes sense

Seriously, use "he" for general usage. 

yeah, polgar isn't that good as most people believe she is. but she's really good for a female chess player. but I seriously suggest you study someone else's games

I also think that the Najdorf is sort of hypermodern because sometimes you fianchetto your bishop to b7.

Yaroslavl wrote:

91 minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #29

Yaroslavl

2mooroo wrote:

Yaroslavl wrote:

The following is an example of a clash between Classical Theory and Hypermodern Theory. It is found in the Sicilian Defense.

In your example ..e5 is played much more than ..e6.  Even on a more fundamental level the Sicilian is not really hypermodern at all.  The move that characterizes it, 1..c5, is a direct attempt to control the center with a pawn. The mainline Najdorf isn't so much about controlling the center as it is about retaining maximum flexibility and giving white no chances to use his early initiative in a dangerous way.  All black has to do is survive the opening and develop all her pieces and she already has a positional edge because of the pawns.  The only hypermodern attempt by black in the Sicilian I'm aware of is the Dragon, especially the Accelerated variations.

_________________________________________

You write, "...In your example .D.e5 is played much more than ..e6.  That is correct. However, when White chooses to play an early 6.Be3, which is the move made in the notation that I posted, and you have been playing the Sicilian Najdorf as long as I have, you become aware that by responding with 6...e6 it restricts the anti-Scheveningen systems available to White. In the ensuing play Black transposes to a full Schevinengen, from the Najdorf /Scheveningen that it transposed to immediately after 6...e6, at a well known juncture in the game where the resulting position favors Black. For the purposes of this thread and illustrating clearly the difference between the 2 theories I chose 6...e6 which is a move that does not occupy the center, rather it uses the power of the pawn e6 to control the d5 square ( a square that I am sure you are aware is thematic in the Sicilian.)

You write further, "...Even on a more fundamental level The Sicilian Is not really Hypermodern at all. The move that characterizes it, 1...c5, Is a direct attempt to control the center with a pawn...". What I hasten to point out is that Black's c-pawn after 1...c5 is controlling the central square d4, yet the pawn at c5 is not occupying any of the central squares (d4,d5,e4,e5).

You point out next that, "...The mainline Najdorf isn't so much about controlling the center as it is about retaining maximum flexibility and giving White no chances to use his early initiative in a dangerous way...". With 1...c5 Black is attempting to establish an asymmetrical pawn structure, and attempting to wrest the initiative from White at the earliest possible moment while simultaneously attempting to control the center with the power of his pawns and pieces with a special focus on the thematic square d5. As I am sure you well know asymmetrical pawn structures create imbalance in the position. White cannot rest easy as he can with symmetrical pawn structures. By creating an asymmetrical pawn structure Black is creating imbalance in the position that leaves the ownership of the initiative/attack up in the air from a dynamic perspective because of the dangerous counterplay available to Black precisely because of the asymmetric pawn structure.

Then you write that, "....  All black has to do is survive the opening and develop all her pieces and she already has a positional edge because of the pawns...". The pawns you are referring to are the 2 vs. 1 majority in the center that Black enjoys. That pawn majority was established as soon as Black played 3...cxd5. But you will notice that in the resulting position after 4.Nxd4, the Black pawns are at d6 and e7, definitely not occupying any central squares. This is In contrast to White's pawn at e4 directly occupying the central square e4. By way of additional information, the Black 2 vs. 1 pawn majority in the center is a critical advantage in controlling the center especially the thematic central square d5, as well as in the middle game and the endgame. At times the pawn complex (d6,e6,f7) is a bulwark of defense should the Black K have to remain in the center because 0-0 is inadvisable or simply not possible.

Finally you write, "...The only hypermodern attempt by black in the Sicilian I'm aware of Is the Dragon, especially The Accelerated variations...". I would hope that, considering the explanation above, your understanding of the Sicilian as a whole has been expanded and has become more comprehensive.

we've already concluded that hypermodern openings are quite popular. no need to say it again

c5 is not a central square in the strict definition of the center. However, if you want to discuss the expanded center ( the squares d3,d4,d5,d6,e3,e4,e5,e6, c4,c5,f4,f5) which all together form a cross like the one on top of the King's head, then that is another whole ball of wax.

Next you mention the move 5...a6 which you consider a prophylactic move. By opening the discussion to the concept of prophylaxis you take into the realm of Siege Warfare. Prophylaxis is a form of restraining method which is one of 3 methods that are employed in Siege Warfare. The 3 methods are restrain, blockade and execute the enemy. With 5...a6 Black restrains White from playing 6.Bb5+. Unless White plays 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bb5+. 5.Bb5 is designed to exchange the Black N if Black plays 5...Nd7 or the Black LSB if Black plays 5...Bd7. Both Black pieces are critical to controlling the center especially the thematic square central square d5. Regarding the LSB at b7 it plays a critical role in defending the thematic central square d5. And the N at d7 plays a critical role as a reserve to the N at f6 which is helping to control the critical central square d5. Or more directly the N originally at b8 and eventually at Nb6 directly defending the critical central square d5. So, yes 5...a6 is a Hypermodern Siege Warfare restraint of the White B going to b5 which is indirectly connected to controlling the center. The reason that White doesn't mind exchanging his LSB is because one of 3 alternate ways for the White LSB to have direct effect on the central square d5 is to play 6.Bc4. The famous Fischer variation.

__________________________________________

2mooroo wrote:

"... Perhaps you could lecture me on the Grunfeld instead in a new thread.  So far I've tried the QGA, the Slav, and the Nimzo for a solid defense against 1.d4 but none of these have really clicked with me the way e4 lines do.

In answer to your question of what to play against 1.d4 you can bet on the King's Indian Defense. GM Ron Henley and I lived together for a while. He said to me "I believe in the King's Indian Defense."

Concerning what you wrote, "How can something be indirect and aggressive at the same time?". It is a matter of keeping the initiative/attack. For example, if your Q is threatened with capture. There are 2 ways to defend it. The indirect way if it is available in the position is to threaten your opponent with mate on the move if he captures your Q. Not very likely he will capture your Q. The important part of the indirect defense is that you keep the initiative/attack. The direct defense usually loses the initiative.

I always think the Rossolimo and Moscow variations are dumb, because in the moscow, it's pretty much an easy draw (most of the time)

and in the rossolimo, white has a pretty hard time defending the b2 pawn, because of the added pressure of the fianchettoed bishop on g7, and the b8 rook. if white plays b3, then blacks g7 bishop will be breathing fire down the long diagonal

We can't embed youtube videos anymore?? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glAhxGTgoKY