Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings

Sort:
Avatar of playerafar
Ziryab wrote:

Of the twenty legal first moves with White, Explorer tells me there are only two that I have never played: Na3 and Nh3.

However, I often play Nh6 several moves in playing the French against the advance variation.

Yes. And Nh6 happens in the Gurgenidze variation of the Caro-Kann.
That's why after e4 c6 d4 d5 ... white is considered to be better defending his pawn with Nd2 than Nc3. And does.
Because after 3) Nc3 black would have g6 ... with a g7 bishop being aided and enhanced by that knight blocking c2 pawn configuration.
Of course that doesn't mean Nc3 there 'loses'.
happy
But here's the Irony.
Say white does play that Nc3 move (including hoping and wanting black to play g6) - so black goes ahead and plays dxe Anyway !! Not g6.
'No! We're doing main line Caro! Lets see if you want to waste 'knight-time' going after my c-bishop.'

Avatar of Dsmith42
Ziryab wrote:
 

It might be worth noting that in Raymond Keene, Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal, he offers an interview with Bent Larsen who believed that Nimzowitsch did not really have a system, despite offering considerable value to chess players.

This is something I learned from a deep dive into Tigran Petrosian's games - Nimzowitsch did have a system, but he didn't follow his own rules very rigorously. Petrosian follows the script of My System with far greater dedication to the rules than Nimzowitsch himself did. When Nimzowitsch lost games, it was almost always due to a move or set of moves which ran counter to one or more rules he gives in his book. Petrosian's moves often look wild to the classically-trains chess player, but always perfectly natural in the context of My System. This helped me solidify the concepts Nimzowitsch was writing about.

Avatar of Dsmith42
tygxc wrote:

@186

Tarrasch 2796 in 1894-1896 was stronger than Nimzovich 2770 in 1928-1930, but not that much.
Nimzovich came later and thus knew more.
Tarrasch lost his World Championship match against Lasker in 1908, while Nimzovich could not raise the money to challenge Alekhine after 1929.
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp

I've spoken about "chess metrics" a number of times on other forums, there is one big problem with them, especially as it relates to evaluating early players. The quality of competition changed dramatically, particularly between 1900 and 1925, when the bulk of opening and positional theory was developed.

Using the World Champions (Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine) as a measuring stick, neither Tarrasch nor Nimzowitch seriously contended with them, but Nimzowitsch comes close to understanding why those players were better than he was, whereas Tarrasch foolishly thought he was favored to beat Lasker.

Avatar of Dsmith42
playerafar wrote:
 

But still - I think the OP has a good idea - including if one is willing to go around the semantics pitfalls - even if the semantics in the opening post are controversial or questionable.
And the OP's opening post refers to 'novices'.
///////////////
Not 'strong players'.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are far over 100 forums here on the subject of the early approach to the openings - 
and if there turns out to be a common pattern too ...
where many strong players recommend 'deep' instead of 'wide'.
//////////////////////////
And then display GM games or other master games.
But the novice is playing his/her own games.
It can be kept in mind that most players will never reach 2000 USCF nor its FIDE equivalent ... nor anywhere near those levels. Never do.
Some might say 'Never Premise that!'
but then a point is missed.
The aims of novice players.
Is it 'see what you can do? be all you can be?' Always?
Hint: every player is different.

This is what I was getting at. The fact that most players never get close to expert level (2000) is, in my view, primarily because of bad habits or incomplete understanding acquired as a novice. It took me a while to realize it, but the 2000 level is not inherently out of reach for any serious player, but it becomes immensely more difficult if the wrong things are completely internalized before attempts are made to correct them. If we keep the developing players' mind open to everything, then they will be better players for it in the long run.

Avatar of Optimissed
tygxc wrote:

@230

I do not take Keene seriously, he wrote and sold many books, but of low quality.
Of course a knight and a king are best to blockade, but that does not make them stronger.
Here a game by Tarrasch that Nimzovich gave in My System to illustrate the bishop's pair:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258462

He was better than how you portray him. However, he wasn't reliable, although who was? I recall against the 2. ... a6 Sicilian, in one book he supported 3. c4 by white. Then in the next, 3. c3 and then in a further book 3. c4. Or was it the other way round? I honestly can't remember. I think 3.c4 is slightly superior to 3. c3.

He was considered by many GMs and readers alike to be a pulp chess writer but I think he was better than that and contributed a lot.

Avatar of The_Patszer

Bookmark

Avatar of playerafar

Nimzowich was good enough to have a major opening named after him.
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4!?
black isn't keen on allowing white to play e4 there.
------------------------------------
But white can prevent the Nimzo by playing 3) Nf3 instead of 3) Nc3.
Then black has a choice between 1) b6 (the Queen's Indian defense) or - 3) d5 -
the 'orthodox' defense.
Apparently black can play c5 too.
And there's something called the Ragozin Defense.
There's the 'Bogo-Indian'.
And the 'semi-Slav'.
To name some.
White opening with d4 instead of Nf3 - doesn't prevent a gigantic spectrum of transpositional possibilities by black. Or even by white!
For example - at some point white might still get into 'Catalans' by going g3 early.

Avatar of Dsmith42

Again, the best and strictest practitioner of My System was not Nimzowitsch himself, it was Tigran Petrosian. I wouldn't have appreciated Nimzowitsch's book near as much if I hadn't reviewed how Petrosian put it to practical use.

Avatar of Optimissed

He was a good player.

Avatar of 8Winters8
Mr_Winawer wrote:
blueemu wrote:

The Scandinavian is hyper-modern. Especially the 3. ... Qd8 line.

But I like playing hypermodern openings that are good.

Cheers to Mr. Winawer. I have the same opinion. Also, I play the Winawer with pretty decent accuracy. French defense is my go-to for black.

Avatar of Optimissed
8Winters8 wrote:
Mr_Winawer wrote:
blueemu wrote:

The Scandinavian is hyper-modern. Especially the 3. ... Qd8 line.

But I like playing hypermodern openings that are good.

Cheers to Mr. Winawer. I have the same opinion. Also, I play the Winawer with pretty decent accuracy. French defense is my go-to for black.

I used to play it from both sides quite successfully. I do think it's weak against the early a4 line but not many people knew it.