Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings

Nimzowitsch was absorbed into the mainstream of the Soviet School, but far less so elsewhere.  Petrosian played entirely based upon Nimzowitsch's principles, for example, Fischer not so much.  It's been a while since we've had a Russian or ex-Soviet World Champion, and the hypermodern influence at the highest levels has waned during the whole of that span.

The reliance on engine analysis has pushed the chess world even further away from the hypermodern school.  The classical rules are more easily quantified, and so many play to an engine's analysis number without understanding how that number is arrived at.

The hypermodern was never fully absorbed into the mainstream of chess, except perhaps for Alekhine and Petrosian.  There are fundamental conflicts between the classical and the hypermodern which were never really resolved over the board, and remain unknown to this day.

@dsmith42 can't agree more. And the biggest issue I, personally, have a bone to pick with is the space issue. Nimzowitch wrote an article titled "Is Dr. Tarrasch's Die Moderne Schachpartie Really A Modern Conception of the Game?", and in that article he gave this:

"Heading the 'inadequate' defenses to the Spanish this time is Steinitz' line ... d7-d6(?) - the question mark originates with Dr. Tarrasch - with or without ...a7-a6. After:

Dr. Tarrasch gives preference to White's game because of his 'freer play', which can be used for all manner of possible attacking continuations. 

If Dr. Tarrasch did not conclude from purely external features of the position, such as the 'freer game', the internal value of the position, which in reality depends only on the specific situation in the center, he would never give preference to white's game"

Nimzowitch then proceeds to explain how black can pressure white's center from all sides, causing white to be on the defensive - even though it is white, not black, who has more space, more activity, and a pawn center. Almost like magic, like an art - which it kind of is. You can do the same in all kinds of positions when you have less space - like in the french defense, for example, it is possible to "make it work" despite the "bad bishop" and "lack of space", as people who haven't actually played the defense say.

Drives me mad to no end.

@B1ZMARK - Spot on!  The question of the center is "The Great Question" of chess!  Activity determines whether the pawn center is a ripe target or a deadly battering ram.

Hypermodern players (and we do still exist) have a better handle on openings which attack and restrain the opponent's pawn center.  The situation isn't static, it's dynamic, and those dynamics fundamentally change one's understanding of the opening, and of the center.

Yeah, that's really the biggest issue that makes my head spin, besides the people who say "your" instead of "you're".

I've met so many people who tell me stuff like, "alekhine's defense [or any other] is bad, white gets a big center - why do you play this?" and I have to show them how black slowly dismantles the white center, but they still remain unconvinced of its soundness, because of the simple "white gets center." 

And here is the problem - they just stop there. They don't provide lines, they don't provide reasoning. It's like talking to an NPC in a video game sometimes. And more often than not, they aren't able to convert such an "advantage" into a win. And then they say, "oh well I'm not very good, but when you meet good players it won't work on them" - as if understanding the position is a trap like those in the Blackmar-Diemer.

I see a ton of that.  Hypermodern stuff is hard, so they convince themselves that they don't need it.  Instead of saying "oh well I'm not very good", I want them to understand why they aren't very good.

Well, the chess world have certainly been waiting for a 1500-player to explain hypermodern chess

A lot players don't really discriminate between classical and hypermodern play.

It's quite common to see a 21st century player open with the London in one game, then the Nimzo-Larsen in another. Or defend with the Queen's Gambit Declined in one game, then the King's Indian in another. (This is especially more noticeable the higher up the ratings ladder you get.)

Classical (and hypermodern) purists are kind of fading away. I'd say it's better, anyway, to absorb the insights from both approaches.

If anything I think hypermodern openings may be slightly overrated...

(I'm not hating on them I promise. In fact I play Indian Game against d4)

dont dismiss dsmith42. I was told that I shouldn't take on the nadjorf as it was too theory heavy. I've beaten some 1800 players with it. same with the shirov caro kann advance. I beat a nm in a simul with it. i forget who said it, but it was something like "there is no bad opening under the master level." after 2 years playing the nadjorf i feel like i actually understand the subtleties on the lines I take (I avoid the complexity of the poison pawn variation.) some Russian masters once said that amateurs play the opening like a gm, the middle game like a expert, and the endgame like a beginner. I def fit that. But you can be surprised with what a hyper modern opening can do against a "follows classical chess principles" player.

What fools this thread is loaded with!

What the bleep has the French vs Caro thread got to do with hypermodern openings?  Jeez!

One of the most basic rules of hypermodern openings is that no central pawn is advanced more than 1 square early.  Both the French and Caro OCCUPY THE CENTER WITH A PAWN via 2...d5.  The Alekhine is a hypermodern opening.  The Nimzo-Indian is a hypermodern opening.  The English and Reti are hypermodern openings.

The French and the Caro-Kann are NOT hypermodern openings.

SMH!

Gruenfeld.

Well, then go tell the one who wrote "Winning With the Hypermodern" that he does not know what he is talking about.  He listed 3 rules and that was one of them.  Another was at least 1 bishop must be fianchettoed.

Oh that's right.  You cannot tell him.  He is dead!

@ThrillerFan - Black is not occupying the center with d5 in the French Defense, he is fixing d4 with the intention of undermining and destroying it.  That's what Nimzowitsch revealed!  The center pawns are a target, and whether they can be effectively targeted or sufficiently overprotected (another Nimzowitsch concept) depends on tempo.

French VS Caro-Kann has everything to do with hypermodern analysis.  The former may have begun as a classical opening, but it has been mastered as a hypermodern one.  The latter is weaker specifically because its claim to the center is slower and thus weaker.

That's why our team is winning, and it's what all those Caro-Kann players have missed in evaluating both openings.

Hypermodern openings do involve 2-space moves for central pawns - when appropriate.   One of Nimzowitsch's rules is to eliminate an opposing center pawn whenever possible.  Hence the Rubinstein Variation.

The engine gives white an edge in the Rubinstein due to space, but that's wrong - the d4 pawn is weak and harder to protect for white than the e6 pawn is for black.  The d-file has a heavy piece on the open file, while white needs to spend tempo occupying the e-file with one.  Hypermodern analysis holds that black is better.

Likewise, the whole dynamic of both openings follows Nimzowitsch's rules on pawn chains.  The French Defense, when played properly by black, is most certainly hypermodern, not classical.  The move 1. ..e6 all but forced white to over-commit in the center, where the pawn center can be fixed, undermined, and ultimately destroyed.

I didn't understand the French Defense, either, until I read My System.  Once I did, I could win with it.  Until I did, I couldn't play it effectively.  If you want to understand the hypermodern, read Nimzowitsch, not Shiller.

It is very odd that you try to use Nimzowitsch, French, and Hypermodern all in the same breath.  Just because all 3 apply to Nimzowitsch does not mean they apply together.  That would be like saying you like Chinese food, Swiss Cheese, and Apple pie.  You going to eat the three together in one bowl?

His hypermodern intervention was the Nimzo-Indian Defense, not the French Defense.  Yes he did also play the French as Black, best known for the Winawer along with Winawer himself and Uhlmann, and the Winawer and Nimzo-Indian have SOME of the same ideas, like surrendering the DSB for structural damage!

HOWEVER!  He did not play the French exclusively as Black, partially due to the fear of his own discovery AGAINST the French!  First it was Paulsen, who failed because he thought the blockade had to be with pawns, but then Nimzowitsch in the early 20th century, revived by Sveshnikov in the late 20th century, came up with the central blockade, and realized that White does not have to maintain the central dark squares with pawns.  They can just as easily be controlled or occupied by pieces and overprotection of those 2 squares, d4 and e5.

Black's play in the French is not hypermodern at all.  It is about controlling the central light squares via occupancy (hypermodern theory is controlling and fighting for the center with long distance pieces, like fianchettoed bishops, and chipping away at over-extension), and trying to fight for control of d4 or e5 in order to break White's central blockade, but removing the White Pawns is not enough.

Nimzowitsch's ideas of hypermodern play do not come from the French.  They come from the Nimzo-Indian, the early days of the English Opening, and to a lesser extent the Nimzowitsch Defense (1.e4 Nc6).

Huh?

ThrillerFan is, of course, 100% correct. 

As for the Grunfeld - technically yes there's a central pawn but it's liquidated so quickly and it has so many elements of hypermodern chess it'd be a real shame to not count it as one. 

The Catalan certainly has a claim to being a classical type though, given that it has pawns in the centre from the start and continues to attempt to establish and maintain pawns in the centre at all times. I think it only started being put in the hypermodern category because Tartakower established it and he was more associated with the hypermodern school.  

Among strong players, this whole Classical vs Hypermodern debate became completely moot around 50 years ago. No good player worries about that stuff anymore. They play what works and what they're comfortable with 

@ThrillerFan - My System is the hypermodern school, in precisely the same way that Tarrasch's Die moderne Schachpartie is the classical school.  Nimzowitsch explains how a hypermodern player analyzes positions, and it has as much to do with pawns as it does with pieces.  It's not about which pieces attack the center, it's about forcing the center open on favorable terms.  Nimzowitsch himself uses the terms hypermodern and French Defense in the same sentence (he spends a lot of time on it in My System), and somehow it is supposed to be wrong for me to do the same?  Utter nonsense.

That's exactly the sort of complacency that Richard Reti shattered in New York in 1924.  Capablanca made a career out of playing comfortable chess, it was the hypermodern school which taught the world how to break such players.  You can't dodge complications unless your opponent allows it - a lesson Alekhine absorbed in advance of his 1927 match with Capablanca.

Just because someone incredible plays it doesn't mean it's right.  It just means that no one has the guts to go into the weeds against them.  The point is that either player can drag the game in that direction if they want to, without being worse off for it.  The tactics become immensely more complex if you do, but if you're really the strongest player, that is the best way to win.

Good to see I struck a chord on this one.  Usually my threads die out very quickly.

It's the usual "we don't need it" or "it's a moot point", which misses the point altogether, but that's not exactly a surprise.