It’s not a hyper modem opening either, you don’t cede the center you control e5 via various moves, same way the nimzo Indian controls e4 just with another tempo
1 b3 is a hyper modern opening, google it if you don't believe me. controlling the center with pieces rather than pawns is the definition of a hypermodern opening. Reti and Larsen openings are quite possibly the best examples of hypermodern openings.
Theres nothing wrong with 1 b3 , just like 1 nf3 its very flexible and you have to be ready for pretty much anything because youre just inviting black to play pretty much whatever they want. nf3 prevents e5, so they will probably play d4, and then you play b3. Not huge differences were talking about here, both completely playable. Both moves will probably transpose into the same game most of the time if you plan on playing b3.
I dont mind playing against either because ive got about 125 rapid games vs a skilled reti larsen player as thats all he plays! its seems alot trickier when you face it 1/100 games playing random people imo. I used to dread facing it until I got a lot of practice.
Yes, if I ask google, it claims 1. Nf3 is a hypermodern opening. Well, 1. Nf3's main line transposes into the QGD or slav... the most classical opening there is. How could 1. Nf3 be a hypermodern opening then? It's nonsense. 1. Nf3 has not yet resolved to be either hypermodern or classical. You have to wait until the structure resolves, there is no meaningful way of defining the term otherwise.
I will admit that, historically, these openings may have been called "hypermodern". If they were, then they were called that wrongfully. Whoever decided to call them that just did so in a very shallow, sloppy manner, because it's completely meaningless if we're calling 1. Nf3 hypermodern when in 2 moves it's become a QGD via its main line.
You can play 1. Nf3 in a way that is just as classical as 1. d4.
Nf3 is considered hyper modern because it meets the definition of a hyper modern chess opening. You play nf3 to control the center rather than e4 or d4. Black cannot play 1e5 because white played nf3 instead of d4, that is why it’s hyper modern. It’s just a dated term of a new way people started to play their first opening moves no need to over complicate this lol
No, d4/c4 is the most classical opening in the game. It's the queens gambit. In the Reti, you literally can and often do play d4 and c4 on the 2nd and 3rd move as the main line, transposing right into the queens gambit declined. So if I play 1. d4 > 2. Nf3, am I playing a classical opening - but if I play 1. Nf3 > 2. d4, it's a hypermodern opening? It's a nonsense argument. The position is not defined on move 1.
I think that you're assuming some chess authority must have decided to name these things properly and in a meaningful way, and that any divergence from that gurus decision must be wrong. Therefor you don't need to think, you just need to agree with the unknown guru. In reality, the naming is probably more of a historical artifact and a result of no central authority being able to instill reasoning into the naming. The way that you used the term "hypermodern" here was not as a historical reference, it was as a description of the position on the board. That is the entire reason the term "hypermodern" is useful. For it to serve that purpose, it must actually be grounded in the positions that arise. Otherwise you are arguing that it has a historical meaning and not much more. Saying you "do not prefer hypermodern openings" is meaningless - it is to say you do not enjoy openings that came about in a specific historical time period.
It's not a hypermodern opening, it does not cede the center. You can play d4/e4 whenever you like, and you often do. Case in point:
If black tries to push e5 it gets almost immediately broken up too so I don't see what the purpose would even be of claiming it is hypermodern, it plays nothing like hypermodern openings like the Pirc or Modern.
by such strict definition, almost no opening is hypermodern then. They are almost no opening where you have your center pawns glued to their starting position or 3rd rank for the 1st 10 moves. You simply will need to commit some central thrust eventually.
that mostly leaves you with some lines of the english, some lines of the bird and some coiled 1.nf3 lines... and thats it.
The way that we name and distinguish openings may seem somewhat arbitrary, but at the very least, we recognize that by move 1 you have not fully determined the opening you are in. As the moves branch out, the actual opening resolves itself. It rarely takes until move 10 to resolve. Usually by move 6, the opening you're in is cemented. I would propose a similar standard for defining whether the position is hypermodern or not.
In general, if your opponent has an opportunity to occupy the center, which you allow until you either a) break it up with flank pawns and then pieces as you envelop it, or b) play around it (and break it up far down the line, presumably), that is what we mean by hypermodern. Which is what the definition actually says. People may deny it but that's how they actually use the term - it's how the person arguing with me in this thread used it - to describe the position. There are many such openings - the modern and pirc, the KID, the benoni, owens, english defense, nimzowitsch sicilian, Reti (the advanced variation), etc.. Otherwise, if you accept the opposing argument, 1. Nf3 > 2. d4 is a hypermodern opening while 1. d4 > 2. Nf3 is a classical opening - which is utterly meaningless. Now, one nuance is it may depend on how you actually play the opening - i.e. you could play the nimzo larsen in a hypermodern style, or in a classical style. You can play 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 and in this case yes, the Reti is a hypermodern opening.
That's the only definition that makes any sense. Anything less is appealing to some imaginary guru who, in reality, didn't exist and the term is just a mindless historical artifact. Which is obviously not what it's intended to be.
I understand your points but:
1. you are proposing rewriting the 100+ year old lexicon of nimzowitsch, tarkatower, et al and using the term "imaginary gurus"
2. ignoring two titled players in this thread telling you that you are wrong, including an international master
3. I don't prefer playing like I have the black pieces when I have the white pieces, thus I don't prefer playing hypermodern openings as white, though I do play 1 c5 (accelerated dragon if possible) and indian game and it's variants vs 1 d4. (thread is about 1b3 remember)
4. Learn how to take an L
It’s not a hyper modem opening either, you don’t cede the center you control e5 via various moves, same way the nimzo Indian controls e4 just with another tempo
1 b3 is a hyper modern opening, google it if you don't believe me. controlling the center with pieces rather than pawns is the definition of a hypermodern opening. Reti and Larsen openings are quite possibly the best examples of hypermodern openings.
Theres nothing wrong with 1 b3 , just like 1 nf3 its very flexible and you have to be ready for pretty much anything because youre just inviting black to play pretty much whatever they want. nf3 prevents e5, so they will probably play d4, and then you play b3. Not huge differences were talking about here, both completely playable. Both moves will probably transpose into the same game most of the time if you plan on playing b3.
I dont mind playing against either because ive got about 125 rapid games vs a skilled reti larsen player as thats all he plays! its seems alot trickier when you face it 1/100 games playing random people imo. I used to dread facing it until I got a lot of practice.
Yes, if I ask google, it claims 1. Nf3 is a hypermodern opening. Well, 1. Nf3's main line transposes into the QGD or slav... the most classical opening there is. How could 1. Nf3 be a hypermodern opening then? It's nonsense. 1. Nf3 has not yet resolved to be either hypermodern or classical. You have to wait until the structure resolves, there is no meaningful way of defining the term otherwise.
I will admit that, historically, these openings may have been called "hypermodern". If they were, then they were called that wrongfully. Whoever decided to call them that just did so in a very shallow, sloppy manner, because it's completely meaningless if we're calling 1. Nf3 hypermodern when in 2 moves it's become a QGD via its main line.
You can play 1. Nf3 in a way that is just as classical as 1. d4.
Nf3 is considered hyper modern because it meets the definition of a hyper modern chess opening. You play nf3 to control the center rather than e4 or d4. Black cannot play 1e5 because white played nf3 instead of d4, that is why it’s hyper modern. It’s just a dated term of a new way people started to play their first opening moves no need to over complicate this lol
No, d4/c4 is the most classical opening in the game. It's the queens gambit. In the Reti, you literally can and often do play d4 and c4 on the 2nd and 3rd move as the main line, transposing right into the queens gambit declined. So if I play 1. d4 > 2. Nf3, am I playing a classical opening - but if I play 1. Nf3 > 2. d4, it's a hypermodern opening? It's a nonsense argument. The position is not defined on move 1.
I think that you're assuming some chess authority must have decided to name these things properly and in a meaningful way, and that any divergence from that gurus decision must be wrong. Therefor you don't need to think, you just need to agree with the unknown guru. In reality, the naming is probably more of a historical artifact and a result of no central authority being able to instill reasoning into the naming. The way that you used the term "hypermodern" here was not as a historical reference, it was as a description of the position on the board. That is the entire reason the term "hypermodern" is useful. For it to serve that purpose, it must actually be grounded in the positions that arise. Otherwise you are arguing that it has a historical meaning and not much more. Saying you "do not prefer hypermodern openings" is meaningless - it is to say you do not enjoy openings that came about in a specific historical time period.
It's not a hypermodern opening, it does not cede the center. You can play d4/e4 whenever you like, and you often do. Case in point:
If black tries to push e5 it gets almost immediately broken up too so I don't see what the purpose would even be of claiming it is hypermodern, it plays nothing like hypermodern openings like the Pirc or Modern.
by such strict definition, almost no opening is hypermodern then. They are almost no opening where you have your center pawns glued to their starting position or 3rd rank for the 1st 10 moves. You simply will need to commit some central thrust eventually.
that mostly leaves you with some lines of the english, some lines of the bird and some coiled 1.nf3 lines... and thats it.
The way that we name and distinguish openings may seem somewhat arbitrary, but at the very least, we recognize that by move 1 you have not fully determined the opening you are in. As the moves branch out, the actual opening resolves itself. It rarely takes until move 10 to resolve. Usually by move 6, the opening you're in is cemented. I would propose a similar standard for defining whether the position is hypermodern or not.
In general, if your opponent has an opportunity to occupy the center, which you allow until you either a) break it up with flank pawns and then pieces as you envelop it, or b) play around it (and break it up far down the line, presumably), that is what we mean by hypermodern. Which is what the definition actually says. People may deny it but that's how they actually use the term - it's how the person arguing with me in this thread used it - to describe the position. There are many such openings - the modern and pirc, the KID, the benoni, owens, english defense, nimzowitsch sicilian, Reti (the advanced variation), etc.. Otherwise, if you accept the opposing argument, 1. Nf3 > 2. d4 is a hypermodern opening while 1. d4 > 2. Nf3 is a classical opening - which is utterly meaningless. Now, one nuance is it may depend on how you actually play the opening - i.e. you could play the nimzo larsen in a hypermodern style, or in a classical style. You can play 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 and in this case yes, the Reti is a hypermodern opening.
That's the only definition that makes any sense. Anything less is appealing to some imaginary guru who, in reality, didn't exist and the term is just a mindless historical artifact. Which is obviously not what it's intended to be.