Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings

The Sicilian is not and has never been considered hypermodern. Don't listen to anything that guy Dsmith42 says, it's just a bunch of random nonsense, very little of it is true. 

Agreed! I think we've all figured that out. Patzers with delusions of grandeur are unfortunately common in these forums

GM Alex Barbuin would like to know your location. 

Accept / Decline

A GOOD PLAYER IS READY FOR ANY DEFENSE OR ANY OPENING.

ok sir

“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: 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!

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!

No because the idiot that tried to claim anything Nimzowitsch did must be hypermodern strategy was an American, so I had to use an American sport (basketball) as an example.  Also, unlike cricket, basketball is an Olympic sport and is therefore played internationally, unlike football (not to be confused with futbol, which we call soccer).

Nobody in America plays or gives two hoots about cricket!  In America, cricket is a very loud insect that resides outdoors and nothing else!

Wrong!

Paulsen came up with the idea of the blockade via maintaining pawns there.

Nimzowitsch and Sveshnikov came up with the idea that it is fine for White to remove the pawns (via dxc5 or exf6) and maintain the blockade via either pieces occupying those squares, or in some cases pieces merely controlling those squares.

Paulsen barely scored 50% trying to hold the pawns there.  Nimzowitsch and Sveshnikov have scored significantly higher by using the minor pieces to execute the blockade!

But again, their approach to the blockade was apples to oranges.  White cannot really hold the center merely trying to keep pawns there.  For instance, f4 cannot be played fast enough to maintain the pawn center.  Playing 5.f4 early on before Nf3 fails for tactical reasons due to the weakening of the a7-g1 diagonal which has tactical consequences on d4.

For this reason, Nimzowitsch came up with the right way to execute the blockade - via the White pieces!

"Couldn't you have exemplified with something comprehensible, like cricket?"

Hear! Hear! If you'd used terms like "Mid wicket," "Square-leg," and "Silly mid-on" I would have twigged your meaning right off

Best description of the Sveshnikov Sicilian I have ever read!

Sums up chess perfectly 

Chess is more complex than basic principles.

To make snap judgments based on a single move is something that only short-sighted players do. Don't fall into that trap!

Such players tend cling to such statements like "don't capture away from the center!" and "a knight on the rim is dim!", and they assume (often wrongly) that this means they should never be allowed to ever make such a move.

But to truly evaluate a move, you have to look past simple principles and actually delve into the strongest possible lines that follow the move. That's what "theory" is.

Theory is the strongest known continuations, after a specific move.

Principles are what beginners use to guide their move choices. Theory is what masters use to guide their move choices.

Modern theory shows that Black is fine after 2...d5xc4. Otherwise, players like Kasparov and Carlsen wouldn't have the QGA as part of their Black repertoire.

And players like Kasparov and Carlsen, arguably, understand chess at a higher level than any other humans on the planet. (And yes, they understand chess at a higher level than even the great Nimzowitsch.)

That's not to knock Nimzowitsch -- the guy contributed significantly to our modern understanding of chess. His contributions elevated the game, no question. But he didn't see the whole picture, in the way modern masters do.

He glimpsed a slice of the whole chess pie, and proclaimed his slice to be the entirety.

I'd say that Nimzo was like Morphy, in a way. They both cemented their names in chess history. And they both understood specific aspects about chess that seemed far ahead of their contemporaries. But both Morphy and Nimzo would crumble against today's players, as chess understanding has moved on considerably since each of them.

if chess were just about objective eval, then we we would have far fewer openings played even at the top tier level.

in fact the reason certain openings have fallen from grace  at the top(like the KID ) is not because they are objectively inferior so much as they have been analyzed to death. The amount of information available today is very high compared to the days you had to read soviet magazines to be up to date.

Ultimately every player must make a choice which combines objective eval, preference ,and even goal in every game. Grandmasters have a narrower range of choices (They cant play as suicidal, require a much more in depth repertoire etc). but they have to choose all the same. Will you learn a very theoretical line 30 moves deep or play a lot of stuff 20 moves deep? will you play something offbeat better than anyone else or will you stick to safe territory?

as a side note, QGA is more than ok, anyone who thinks otherwise is snorting blocks.

The wisdom of Dsmith42:

"Petrosian played entirely based upon Nimzowitsch's principles,"

"The QGA is awful for black. Whatever theory holds that it is OK is wrong. Black is unambiguously weaker for having played dxc4."

Petrosian played the QGA as black seven(!)  times while winning his world championship  match with Botvinnik in 1963!

I didn't say the QGA is unsound, I just said it's not as good as the QGD because it wastes tempo.  There are a lot of openings which don't lose by force (that's the definition of unsound) that nonetheless don't afford black much chance of winning.

Petrosian played the QGA against Botvinnik because it was Botvinnik, who was renowned for his match preparation skills.  Botvinnik wouldn't have expected it, as he barely played it at all prior to the match (and not much afterwards, either).  Three years later, against Spassky (who knew better how to punish loss of tempo), the QGA was nowhere to be found.

It's like saying Bobby Fischer was an English player because he played it in his 1972 match with Spassky.  He knew that the Soviet players were experts in opening preparation, and that Spassky had been preparing for no other opponent over the prior three years.

"as a side note, QGA is more than ok, anyone who thinks otherwise is snorting blocks."

Absolutely true!