Absorbed, but not always completely or correctly.
Countries where My System is considered standard reading still produce the most GMs - Russia (#1), Germany (#2), and Ukraine (#3). The USA is #4, and many of our GMs are from the former Soviet Union, and India is #5, where the hypdermodern style of analysis has long been preferred.
To suggest that players don't suffer without fully absorbing Nimzowitsch (or Tarrasch for that matter) flies in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.
But you forgot that you're not supposed to take the pawn in the Queen's Gambit.
No, taking the pawn is absolutely fine. You mustn't believe Nimzowitsch: he had some rather idiosyncratic views. It's important to live in the real world. He is like any half decent chess authors. He can help you but reading him isn't mandatory.
What a lot of pretentious twaddle. "Hypermodernism" is classical chess, a nearly century-old approach. Modern players have absorbed the good parts of "My System" and discarded the rest a long, long time ago,
what is considered hypermodern then. apparently every sicilian is and the grunfeld and kings indian is. the catalan is controversial and idk
What a lot of pretentious twaddle. "Hypermodernism" is classical chess, a nearly century-old approach. Modern players have absorbed the good parts of "My System" and discarded the rest a long, long time ago,
There is nothing to discard. Nimzowitsch only ran into trouble in his own games when he disregarded his own advice (unsound sacrifices, tempo-losing exchanges, etc.). Petrosian played completely in keeping with My System, and at his peak form he was as strong as any player who has ever lived.
@Optimissed - Thanks for making my point. You think taking the pawn is fine because you don't know hypermodern theory. It's not OK, it's a waste of tempo, which for black (who starts the game a tempo behind) is often fatal. Black can't hold on to the gambit pawn (the Queen's gambit is not a true gambit), and white gets to make a developing move when he recaptures.
The QGA is awful for black. Whatever theory holds that it is OK is wrong. Black is unambiguously weaker for having played dxc4.
He's an idiot
Agreed! I think we've all figured that out. Patzers with delusions of grandeur are unfortunately common in these forums
@Optimissed - Thanks for making my point. You think taking the pawn is fine because you don't know hypermodern theory. It's not OK, it's a waste of tempo, which for black (who starts the game a tempo behind) is often fatal. Black can't hold on to the gambit pawn (the Queen's gambit is not a true gambit), and white gets to make a developing move when he recaptures.
The QGA is awful for black. Whatever theory holds that it is OK is wrong. Black is unambiguously weaker for having played dxc4.
GM Alex Barbuin would like to know your location.
Accept / Decline
A GOOD PLAYER IS READY FOR ANY DEFENSE OR ANY OPENING.
“The QGA is awful for black. Whatever theory holds that it is OK is wrong. Black is unambiguously weaker for having played dxc4.”--Dsmith42
What a pity no one ever told Kasparov, Carlsen, Caruana, Anand, Fischer, Nakamura, and Petrosian. Those poor chumps apparently never mastered Hypermodern Theory, so they made the fatal error of playing 2...dxc4. No wonder no one ever heard of those guys
Optimissed good posts but you are going to have to improve at the art of not arguing with stupid people. edit: I am not referring to blueemu here.
Stupid people (your judgement) can be corrected once or possibly twice if they aren't trolls. I argued far too much with btickler some months ago on the "chess is a draw" thread. I admit that. It was a mistake but I didn't realise at the time that he's a troll.
“The QGA is awful for black. Whatever theory holds that it is OK is wrong. Black is unambiguously weaker for having played dxc4.”--Dsmith42
What a pity no one ever told Kasparov, Carlsen, Caruana, Anand, Fischer, Nakamura, and Petrosian. Those poor chumps apparently never mastered Hypermodern Theory, so the made the fatal error of playing 2...dxc4. No wonder no one ever heard of those guys
One of the best posts you've ever made. Sharp, decisive, punchy and true!
Optimissed: I have also been sucked into overlong discussions with trolls. A really good troll can be quite convincing at first. You think you are engaged in a real exchange of ideas. Then, after far too long, you realize that this is just another malignant troll sucking up your valuable time!
@Optimissed - Thanks for making my point. You think taking the pawn is fine because you don't know hypermodern theory. It's not OK, it's a waste of tempo, which for black (who starts the game a tempo behind) is often fatal. Black can't hold on to the gambit pawn (the Queen's gambit is not a true gambit), and white gets to make a developing move when he recaptures.
The QGA is awful for black. Whatever theory holds that it is OK is wrong. Black is unambiguously weaker for having played dxc4.
Hi, all I can say in my defence is that when I was a beginner/improving chess player I used the QGA because I simply didn't have the knowhow and openings knowledge to use the QGD. It served me very well. Converting to FIDE equivalents because I'm in the UK, I could hold a draw with people more than 300 FIDE stronger than me, with me playing black. So they would have been in the 1700 -1800 range. I only gave the QGA up as my primary defence when I needed to beat those same people and found I could only draw with the QGA.
Black takes the c pawn with the second move but that isn't a wasted tempo. With it, black achieves three things. Firstly, in the QGD, white makes a target of black's pawn on d5. So the first thing is that black gets rid of it. White has to spend some time getting the pawn back and provided black plays accurately, this means that white has to be quite conservative regarding mobilisation, unless white plays 3. e4, which is probably white's best move provided white knows all the sharp lines. I play 1. d4 as white and I wouldn't play 3. e4. I go for the classical approach with Nf3 and e3, because I know it quite well and rarely come unstuck.
The third advantage of 2. ...dc for black is that black gets very easy mobilisation of pieces. As black, I play the classical structure, identical to the Paulsen/Kan/O'Kelly Sicilian complex, with e6, c5, a6, b5. It can transpose, in fact. Black would be a tempo up. It's rock solid. It's hypermodern because it's closer to the Paulsen Sicilian than to the O'Kelly. The O'Kelly is probably the most aggressive Sicilian move order that exists. The Paulsen, with e6, a6, Qc7, is extremely slow due to the move order. There are no early, sharp tactics for black in the Paulsen Sicilian or the QGA. The O'Kelly Sicilian is an extremely sharp, counter-attacking system but the much slower nature of the QGA seems to me, at least, to place it more in the hypermodern drawer. Obviously I know more about the O'Kelly Sicilian than Nimzowitsch ever did! 
Optimissed: I have also been sucked into overlong discussions with trolls. A really good troll can be quite convincing at first. You think you are engaged in a real exchange of ideas. Then, after far too long, you realize that this is just another malignant troll sucking up your valuable time!
Yes, I was disappointed to find that with the member I mentioned but he's very much in the minority. Most people here either make honest contributions, or they are obviously just having fun and don't seek to harm others in any way.
Because he invented it.
Just because Nimzowitsch came up with it does not mean that everything Nimzowitsch played was Hypermodern strategy.
If the head coach of the New York Knicks had invented the Pick-n-Roll, and in a play against the Chicago Bulls, they execute the Low Post, is the low post now the Pick-n-Roll suddenly? No!
Just because you come up with an idea does not mean everything you do follows that idea.
The French Defense is NOT hypermodern strategy.
Nimzowitsch came up with the idea of the Blockade via the pieces in the Advance French. Sveshnikov followed up on that same strategy. So since Nimzowitsch played the Advance French as White, and everything Nimzowitsch does to you is hypermodern strategy, I guess playing the White side of the Advance French must be hypermodern strategy, huh?
SMH!
Both Tarrasch's and Nimzowitsch;s books are nearly a century old, and everything worthwhile in those books has been absorbed into common practice. The teachings of the Steinitz/Tarrasch school have stood the test time, and the the important contributions of the hypermoderns have become the common property of all strong players. The idea that there is some magical property in a book Nimsowitsch wrote mainly to try an attract a backer to finance a world championship is simply ridiculous, Many of the strongest players in the world have either never read "My System" or put it down without finishing it. And that doesn't seem to have hurt them