I am actually enjoying this discussion.
Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings
Sort:
Jan 12, 2021
0
#83
Tempo counting isn't really as important as some amateur players seem to think. Especially when, if you move through the actual lines of the QGA (explore the actual theory), you'll see how the tempos are either returned, or made irrelevant, due to other positional factors.
You'll see this often, especially in online kibitzing, when low-level players are watching grandmasters play. They'll see a move and groan about how bad it is, because they've learned about certain principles from the books they've read, and now they suddenly think they know better than world-class players.
The better way to approach this is to think: "Wait, I thought the QGA is bad? But many world-class players still play it. Clearly, I'm not a world-class player myself, so perhaps there's more to the QGA than I thought. Maybe there's actually something I could learn here, that would improve my understanding of the game . . ."
"Wait, I thought the QGA is bad? But many world-class players still play it. Clearly, I'm not a world-class player myself, so perhaps there's more to the QGA than I thought. Maybe there's actually something I could learn here, that would improve my understanding of the game . . ."
I don't think the OP is capable of that kind of thinking
The OP only played a few games on chess.com that's why he's that low-rated, his speaches about chess though seem pretty smart
I don't want to seem unkind, but its seems that he is simply repeating things he has read without fully understanding them
I think the OPs mistake is trying to sort openings as either classical or hypermodern. Chess openings are always borrowing ideas from each other and are much more flexible than that. Just look at the Nimzo Indian (since you guys were talking about Nimzowitsch anyway), after 4.e3 two common black options are using the QGD structures or playing b6 and take a more hypermodern approach.
A lot of players get caught up in absolutes, Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch, Fischer, Sveshnikov, etc frequently made claims that weren't exactly true.
Fischer was half right in saying e4 is best and there are many ways to equalize against d4.
ShamusMcFlannigan wrote:
I think the OPs mistake is trying to sort openings as either classical or hypermodern. Chess openings are always borrowing ideas from each other and are much more flexible than that. Just look at the Nimzo Indian (since you guys were talking about Nimzowitsch anyway), after 4.e3 two common black options are using the QGD structures or playing b6 and take a more hypermodern approach.
A lot of players get caught up in absolutes, Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch, Fischer, Sveshnikov, etc frequently made claims that weren't exactly true.
That's not really it - sorting as hypermodern vs classic may have faded in relevancy in modern times but it's still a legit idea. What OP is doing is not going by Nimzowitsch or anyone else, he is completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what he said and meant. As noted, it was just a basic rule of thumb that Nimzowitsch said you should take the pawn unless it's away from the centre. It's like how he says you should try to get a rook to the seventh. Does that mean you should ALWAYS bust your a.ss trying to get the rook to the seventh completely ignoring something like his king being in the centre of the board? No, it's just a rule of thumb. Is a knight on the rim always grim? No, it just often is, avoid it if you can. So this is why OP's posts are so bad - this is quite different to dogma actually held by Nimzowitsch (such as how to attack pawn chains from their base) or Tarrasch (such as that pawns should ideally occupy the centre).
But what really puts OP's credibility into the laughing stock category is how he claims the QGA is bad. The QGA has been used by elite super grandmasters and world champions as their absolute main defence for decades. Its reputation is up there with the Sicilian, the KID and maybe even the Grunfeld. The questioning of the QGA is what turns OP's thread into mere farce.
Nimzowitsch accepted the King's Gambit several times later in his career - ie. taking away from the centre - not that this is required to prove OP has no idea what he's talking about, it's just a nice bonus.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
ShamusMcFlannigan wrote:
I think the OPs mistake is trying to sort openings as either classical or hypermodern. Chess openings are always borrowing ideas from each other and are much more flexible than that. Just look at the Nimzo Indian (since you guys were talking about Nimzowitsch anyway), after 4.e3 two common black options are using the QGD structures or playing b6 and take a more hypermodern approach.
A lot of players get caught up in absolutes, Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch, Fischer, Sveshnikov, etc frequently made claims that weren't exactly true.
That's not really it - sorting as hypermodern vs classic may have faded in relevancy in modern times but it's still a legit idea. What OP is doing is not going by Nimzowitsch or anyone else, he is completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what he said and meant. As noted, it was just a basic rule of thumb that Nimzowitsch said you should take the pawn unless it's away from the centre. It's like how he says you should try to get a rook to the seventh. Does that mean you should ALWAYS bust your a.ss trying to get the rook to the seventh completely ignoring something like his king being in the centre of the board? No, it's just a rule of thumb. Is a knight on the rim always grim? No, it just often is, avoid it if you can. So this is why OP's posts are so bad - this is quite different to dogma actually held by Nimzowitsch (such as how to attack pawn chains from their base) or Tarrasch (such as that pawns should ideally occupy the centre).
But what really puts OP's credibility into the laughing stock category is how he claims the QGA is bad. The QGA has been used by elite super grandmasters and world champions as their absolute main defence for decades. Its reputation is up there with the Sicilian, the KID and maybe even the Grunfeld. The questioning of the QGA is what turns OP's thread into mere farce.
Nimzowitsch accepted the King's Gambit several times later in his career - ie. taking away from the centre - not that this is required to prove OP has no idea what he's talking about, it's just a nice bonus.
I wouldn't say sorting openings in this way is completely irrelevant, but there are so many other ways to classify opening ideas at this point.
It's understandable that people misunderstand Nimzo so often though. If you just read his quote about isolated pawns casting gloom on the chess board, you might start thinking a certain way. Personally, I think he used strong language to try to compensate for things like never beating Capa.
And of course, the QGA is a top shelf defense. Whether we can put the KID in that category is another discussion though. I actually saw a Radjabov video on the KID where he says something along the lines of black being a bit worse but with counter chances (not that that appliess to any of us).
I used to always play to avoid isolated pawns and I've learned that they are sometimes extremely good and often not as bad as I thought them to be. I mindlessly avoided them in the past.
It's interesting that some of the most devastating defeats Karpov suffered--and he didn't suffer many devastating defeats!--came when he was defending against an IQP. Of course he also scored many fine wins playing against the IQP as well
Optimissed wrote:
That's the nature of it. It makes for imbalance!
Absolutely. I really enjoy playing those positions
Apr 6, 2024
0
#95
Dsmith42 wrote:
You can't use classical analysis to judge hypermodern openings. When you do, you completely misrepresent the strength of the opening, and mislead other novice players as to the right way to approach them.
Those who have been following the "French VS Caro-Kann" correspondence match have seen how bad that level of misunderstanding is even for otherwise-decent chess players. It's not just the French Defense, either. The Reti, the English, the Nimzo-Larsen, the KID, the Modern Defense, the Grunfeld Defense, and any of a number of other hypermodern openings which classical players on this site consistently fail to wrap their brains around, and somehow feel the need to spread their own ignorance as though they were an authority on the matter.
The Opening is a fight for the center, but there are two fundamental approaches to this. The "Classical" approach seeks to occupy the center with pawns, while the "Hypermodern" approach attacks into and across it with pieces. In the former school, the big pawn center was an asset, to the latter, it is simply a target.
So my appeal is this - if you are a classical player, and you don't want to read My System because it's too hard, then don't pretend to understand what any hypermodern opening is about. Young players on this site, who have aspirations of getting past the amateur level, will eventually need to learn the hypermodern concepts in order to reach such playing strengths, and if they get the wrong idea about them, it will be 100 times harder for them to unlearn the nonsense they've absorbed than it will be for them to learn it right in the first place.
Classical players can be quite strong players, but they can't teach beginners how to handle the hypermodern stuff. Bad information leads to bad habits, which is the main reason chess players stop improving.
As a novice I was almost forced to discover the hypermodern chess concept, but it was not an easy find at all.
Apr 6, 2024
0
#96
Dsmith42 wrote:
You can't use classical analysis to judge hypermodern openings. When you do, you completely misrepresent the strength of the opening, and mislead other novice players as to the right way to approach them.
Those who have been following the "French VS Caro-Kann" correspondence match have seen how bad that level of misunderstanding is even for otherwise-decent chess players. It's not just the French Defense, either. The Reti, the English, the Nimzo-Larsen, the KID, the Modern Defense, the Grunfeld Defense, and any of a number of other hypermodern openings which classical players on this site consistently fail to wrap their brains around, and somehow feel the need to spread their own ignorance as though they were an authority on the matter.
The Opening is a fight for the center, but there are two fundamental approaches to this. The "Classical" approach seeks to occupy the center with pawns, while the "Hypermodern" approach attacks into and across it with pieces. In the former school, the big pawn center was an asset, to the latter, it is simply a target.
So my appeal is this - if you are a classical player, and you don't want to read My System because it's too hard, then don't pretend to understand what any hypermodern opening is about. Young players on this site, who have aspirations of getting past the amateur level, will eventually need to learn the hypermodern concepts in order to reach such playing strengths, and if they get the wrong idea about them, it will be 100 times harder for them to unlearn the nonsense they've absorbed than it will be for them to learn it right in the first place.
Classical players can be quite strong players, but they can't teach beginners how to handle the hypermodern stuff. Bad information leads to bad habits, which is the main reason chess players stop improving.
I agree with a lot of that.
As to the semantics of 'hypermodern' well there's obvious controversy about that as seen in some of the posts in this forum.
The word itself 'hypermodern' might not be of much or any use to a player wanting to improve his knowledge and skill in openings.
Better might be to refer to e4 e5 as an Open game.
Why? If its not because f2 and f7 are now more exposed because the pawn moves e3 and e6 are then impossible to block the diagonals into those squares ...
if its for some other technical or semantics reason - okay.
/////////////////////////////
But that's what's remarkable to me about that 'classical' e4 e5 opening of the game.
And therefore both sides might be liking to get their bishops to c4 (for white) or to c5 for black for that very reason. Or otherwise to those diagonals of those squares aiming at the other sides king-position. And their queens too - or instead.
There's 26 diagonals on the board.
Fact.
But those two diagonals so often become 'mortal' whether in the opening or the middlegame. Whether the target King is castled short or uncastled.
Apr 6, 2024
0
#97
"What's the semantic overload with the word hypermodern"
my point: the word wouldn't seem to be of much use to students of openings.
Closed and Open and half-open and semi-closed would seem to be better - but still not good enough.
But those terms can't be avoided (unlike 'hypermodern') because terms like Closed and Open are too embedded into the nomenclature of openings anyway.
Regarding e4 'opening' both a diagonal of White's queen and his f-bishop - it could be pointed out that d4 instead - opens the diagonal of the c-bishop plus enhances the queen by increasing its scope on the file in front of it.
It can also be pointed out that white often doesn't use the longer diagonal of his queen in the opening and instead uses the shorter one with the squares c2 and b3 and a4 ...
@126
"Regarding e4 'opening' both a diagonal of White's queen and his f-bishop - it could be pointed out that d4 instead - opens the diagonal of the c-bishop plus enhances the queen by increasing its scope on the file in front of it."
- Moving the f1 bishop prepares O-O. Moving the c1 bishop prepares O-O-O, but that needs a premature queen move and usually needs an additional king move to b1 to reach safety.
- Moving the f1 bishop allows to target the weak spot f7,
while moving the c1 bishop to target c7 is less threatening. - Opening 1 e4 allows to follow up with d4 while Qd1 covers d4,
while after opening 1 d4 black can control e4 and thus compel the less effective e3 for white. - 1 e4 gives 4 squares to the queen: e2, f3, g4, h5,
while 1 d4 only gives 2 squares to the queen: d2 and d3.
"It can also be pointed out that white often doesn't use the longer diagonal of his queen in the opening and instead uses the shorter one with the squares c2 and b3 and a4 ..."
++ White often uses the queen's diagonal:
Qe2 or Qf3 in the Sicilian, Qg4 in the French, Qh5 in the Vienna...
Apr 7, 2024
0
#99
@tygxc - and white often does not use that diagonal for the queen.
But I think you've missed the point.
I'm not claiming d4 is equal or better than e4 nor that its worse ...
I'm pointing out about the term 'open game' in reference to e4 e5.
Do you get it?
You just admitted that e4 prepares Bc4 which then hits f7 ...
especially if Black responds to e4 with e5 ...
@129
"I'm pointing out about the term 'open game' in reference to e4 e5."
++ That naming is confusing.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 e5 is an open position,
while 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 is a closed position.
"You just admitted that e4 prepares Bc4 which then hits f7 ..." ++ Sure, or Bb5-Ba4-Bb3.
Dsmith42 it is possible to be rated 1000 and have a valid opinion on a chess opening or general principles. But your analysis is just nonsense. I read the entire of My System carefully and have no recollection of Nimzowitsch ever saying that, so if he did it was just a crude rule of thumb briefly mentioned in some small spot for beginners that hardly anyone paid attention to. Nimzowitsch played the king's gambit accepted which captures away from the centre multiple times towards the end of his career. You have no f-king clue what Nimzowitsch thought or is talking about most of the time. You are just deciding you're going to have an argument about chess and you'll have good passionate argument - but it is not a real or valid one. It falls under the idea of being "not even wrong" - to say something is wrong would be a respect what you're saying does not deserve - just plain nonsense.