Regarding the forum topic -
'classical' players 'don't understand' 'hypermodern' ...
Openings aren't solved. Unlike many endings.
So 'understanding' is scalar ...
and 'very strong' players are likely to have proficiency in many kinds of opening ..
'classical players' is kind of pigeon-holing ... but its more about the strength of players than their 'classification' ...
Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings
Sort:
Apr 7, 2024
0
#102
@131
"But the position after e4 e5 is often called 'open game' and for a very long time now."
++ Yes, I know, but it is confusing.
@132
"classical' players 'don't understand' 'hypermodern'"
++ Hypermodern was very modern... a century ago. Nowadays hypermodern means nothing.
"Openings aren't solved." ++ To a large extent they are.
We know 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3 are better than the other 16 legal moves.
We know 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...e6, 1...c6 are better reponses to 1 e4 than the other 16 legal moves etc.
"Unlike many endings" ++ All 7-men endgames are strongly solved by the 7-men endgame table base. Many more endgames are solved as well.
"'very strong' players are likely to have proficiency in many kinds of opening"
++ No, some very strong players used a narrow opening repertoire.
Kasparov: as black 462 Sicilian and 158 King's Indian, as white 191 Sicilian and 104 Ruy Lopez.
Fischer: as black 208 Sicilian and 117 King's Indian, as white 201 Sicilian and 207 Ruy Lopez.
While the French is easily and correctly classified as a classical approach to 1.e4, I'd hardly call the Caro hypermodern. The primary objective of the Caro-Kann defense is lobbing a pawn into d5 so as to stake a solid control of the center. As such, the Caro-Kann often leads to solid and mostly equal middlegames. Hypermodern openings-such as the modern defense or english-strive to obliquely control the center while setting up a strong sideline defence.
'The fact is that the Hypermodern Theory is merely the application, during the opening stages generally, of the same old principles through the medium of somewhat new tactics.
There has been no change in the fundamentals. The change has been only a change of form, and not always for the best at that. ' - Capablanca 1934
Optimissed wrote:
Immaterialgirlz wrote:
While the French is easily and correctly classified as a classical approach to 1.e4, I'd hardly call the Caro hypermodern. The primary objective of the Caro-Kann defense is lobbing a pawn into d5 so as to stake a solid control of the center. As such, the Caro-Kann often leads to solid and mostly equal middlegames. Hypermodern openings-such as the modern defense or english-strive to obliquely control the center while setting up a strong sideline defence.
My reason for calling it hypermodern is that it isn't in the slightest bit solid! It only seems solid when white isn't well-versed in attacking it. Hence at a low level it's regarded as solid.
The main line of the Caro is 3. Nd2, after which black has little choice but to play ...de (Nc3 gives black a choice!) and then, where is black's stake in the centre?
I wouldn't call the English Opening hypermodern, either ... certainly not like the Reti. It's mainly a transpositional opening where white can try to choose attractive lines from a variety of approaches, to suit the occasion. So playing the English well demands an excellent knowledge of classical openings.
Still, there's nothing like a variety of opinion to promote healthy discourse.
Your reasoning is odd to me. It seems as if your classification of the opening as hypermodern stems mainly from the way you choose to play it. However, there are solid options in most variations of the Caro, including the modern variation with 3.nd2 3...e6 leading to a drawish semi-open middlegame. Black absolutely doesn't "have little choice," and black's stake in the center can be maintained in nearly any line for better or worse.
In fact, the computer evalutaion of the position after 3...e6 is no worse than that after 1...c6. The solid moves simply maintain the slight disadvatage black suffers from in most openings.
One surely does not need excellent understanding of classical openings to play the English opening competently. It's my main opening for white, and I'm a total patzer.
I do agree that the Caro incorporates some hypermodern elements. i'd hardly call it hypermodern, though
Optimissed wrote:
Immaterialgirlz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Immaterialgirlz wrote:
While the French is easily and correctly classified as a classical approach to 1.e4, I'd hardly call the Caro hypermodern. The primary objective of the Caro-Kann defense is lobbing a pawn into d5 so as to stake a solid control of the center. As such, the Caro-Kann often leads to solid and mostly equal middlegames. Hypermodern openings-such as the modern defense or english-strive to obliquely control the center while setting up a strong sideline defence.
My reason for calling it hypermodern is that it isn't in the slightest bit solid! It only seems solid when white isn't well-versed in attacking it. Hence at a low level it's regarded as solid.
The main line of the Caro is 3. Nd2, after which black has little choice but to play ...de (Nc3 gives black a choice!) and then, where is black's stake in the centre?
I wouldn't call the English Opening hypermodern, either ... certainly not like the Reti. It's mainly a transpositional opening where white can try to choose attractive lines from a variety of approaches, to suit the occasion. So playing the English well demands an excellent knowledge of classical openings.
Still, there's nothing like a variety of opinion to promote healthy discourse.
Your reasoning is odd to me. It seems as if your classification of the opening as hypermodern stems mainly from the way you choose to play it. However, there are solid options in most variations of the Caro, including the modern variation with 3.nd2 3...e6 leading to a drawish semi-open middlegame. Black absolutely doesn't "have little choice," and black's stake in the center can be maintained in nearly any line for better or worse.
In fact, the computer evalutaion of the position after 3...e6 is no worse than that after 1...c6. The solid moves simply maintain the slight disadvatage black suffers from in most openings.
One surely does not need excellent understanding of classical openings to play the English opening competently. It's my main opening for white, and I'm a total patzer.
If black is playing for one result only ... a draw ... then you could be right. I never considered the Advance Caro-Kann particularly nasty and I developed my own way of playing against it. A year or so later, the very strongest engines like Stockfish were playing what I worked out for myself and have been playing for years. In the Advance, black doesn't over-react. No immediate hysterics like 3. ...c5. Black develops the B sensibly to f5, plays e6 and develops the knights to e7 and d7. Then ...c5. Up to a year ago I was happily castling ...0-0 and winning LOTS of games but there's a better understanding coming from the white side in the form of f2-f4-f5-f6 and things like that, so it's meant a reassessment. In the 70s it was the norm to ... 0-0-0 in the Caro, not to attack on opposite sides but more to survive and then to try and attack on oppposite sides. I remember Jonathan Speelman playing a televised game and coming horribly to grief. He called it "his poor Caro-Kann" or some such. He was completely smashed up. Yes, he castled ... 0-0-0. The Caro is NOT solid.
Maybe, then, the Caro is more hypermodern than the hypermodern openings?
i'm playing nothing but the Paulsen Sicilian (with 2. ...a6) at the moment because I'm far happier with it. It's more flexible and safer than the Caro, where black can be a sitting duck.
I'm not really sure what conclusion your anecdotes are contributing to. One-hundred million Jonathan Speelman's could play a bad game in the Caro and it wouldn't be evidence of its non-solidity or hypermodernity.
At best, the opening is a solid, semi-classical opening with hypermodern elements. It's so solid in fact that Titled players will often disfavor it because of its drawishness. In Classical time controls, black's objective is to equalize and capitalize on mistakes. The Caro is used in these settings because black equalizes easily in most variations. it's very tough to maintain white's opening advantage.
Optimissed wrote:
Actually, I just looked at your last comment. I've no idea how strong a player you are because you only play 3 minute blitz. Perhaps you ARE a beginner? I was really talking about getting the best from the English Opening rather than trying to play it as a system, which maybe you try to do?
I also noticed your comment about 3. Nd2 in the Caro and black playing 3. ...e6. Well, the immediate thing that springs to mind is that black is in a Tarrasch French a whole tempo down, since black will have to play c5. Honestly, don't put your faith in the engine's assessment of openings. That would only be one of white's choices.
I lost access to my previous account Immaterialgirls which has a rapid rating of 2004. i'm unfortunately unable to recover that account. The English opening isn't a system and the engine evaluation ought to be trusted in the opening because the position is objectively uncomplicated.
Optimissed wrote:
I added quite a bit. Also I doubt you're in Speelman's league. I'll repost what I added and cut out the rhetoric anout anecdotes if you want to be taken seriously. It makes me think you're trying to win an argument, rather than discuss an opening/.
I just don't thinl you've made a convincing assessment. i'd say Alireza Firouzja is likely quite a bit stronger than Speelmann is or was and regularly uses the Caro, if we're appealing to authority.
Optimissed wrote:
Oh I'm sorry to hear that. I lost access to mty first account where I had a Daily rating of 2225 and a Rapid rating of about 2000 too, but that was some years ago. It's a pain in the neck, isn't it.
Yeah, I quite liked that account.
I'd say don't pigeonhole yourself into being a "classical player" or a "hypermodern player". To embrace one too much is to neglect the other.
Instead, absorb what you can from both philosophies.
Look at Carlsen - he's quite flexible and plays all manner of openings and defenses. To him, the distinction between "classical play" and "hypermodern play" is likely a pointless one to make.
It's like asking an experienced boxer, "What's better to learn? A cross or a hook?" The boxer would answer that you should, of course, train both ...
InappropriateUsername3712 wrote:
I heard the name kings Indian defense might be getting changed. It seems the Kings Indian was a slave who played chess when his master saw the defensive configuration and then bestowed the name Kings Indian defense. Todays political climate has an overton window closing fast and the kings Indian is no longer acceptable. I heard FIDE will be announcing this in the near future. What will or can we call it to satisfy the social justice warrior's? The Indians king defense, the kings Indian was not a slave defence? Absurd
It's absurd because it's not true. None of it, from the origins of the name to FIDE "changing the name".
Spreading nonsense like that is just shameful.
Apr 8, 2024
0
#114
Regarding the idea of 'playing for a draw' in the opening -
there's still a middlegame and endgame to play ...
so the idea that one is 'playing for a draw' with a zillion pieces on the board and zillions of possible variations and zillions of ways for one or both players to go wrong - looks kind of ridiculous.
Maybe up in the stratosphere of chess somewhere that might hold some water?
And by that - I don't mean expert or even master ...
That 'playing for a draw' business looks a bit like 'Hey we've got the two Bishops - we're Winning!' or 'We got a Qside pawn majority in the opening! We're winning this!'
Perhaps the idea of 'Black's playing for a draw!' might have some legitimacy in these contexts ...
1) Black might be 'happy' with a draw but that doesn't mean that the positions of all the pieces and pawns on the board are going to lead to a draw or an opportunity to force one. Same with white.
2) If one were to look up on the database various opening positions that 'seem drawish' - are you going to find positions with an overwhelming percentage of draws?
In GM chess generally there's a higher percentage of draws ... but that would appear to be because GM's are much less likely to make an easily exploitable mistake.
3) You see endgames where each side has connected pawns on the same files as the other side - like on the f and g and h files for example ... and a bishop each or a knight each or a rook each. OK - draw!
4) but how about one side had his three pawns on the other side instead? a and b and c pawns? Now what? Is it 'impossible' to win?
5) 'Creating imbalances'. That's restricted to the opening? You can't do that in the middlegame? Why not in the endgame too?
Earlier this Caro Kann was mentioned: e4 c6 d4 d5 Nd2 dxe4 and 4 Nxe4.
Black now has 'no center'??
Classically - the game often continues Bf5 Ng3 Bg6.
Black's not going to have a locked-in bishop.
Both his knights are coming out.
He has pawn coverage of d5.
White has no e-pawn anymore to bump a black knight at f6.
Nor to cause trouble at e6.
Since black's e-pawn has not been committed to e5 and can still go to e6 - a white Bc4 move doesn't look so potent. Nor a white Qb3 move.
Hey if black wasn't 'okay' here - the Caro Kann would have been out of business!
But so Many openings are Not out of business ...
Because
1) they're not 'solved' and
2) there's still the rest of the opening to play and the middlegame and the endgame.
Apr 8, 2024
0
#115
'what we're talking about' ...
that might make some sense - some - if this was a lecture hall with a professor in charge ...
but it isn't.
the topic is about 'don't understand hypermodern openings'
My previous post stands - with or without 'reins of a horse' or use of the word 'we'.
And there are many 'ideas'. 'An' idea? as opposed to 'the' idea.
Again - if there was a professor in charge here - then he might insist that 'his' idea is 'the' idea. But that is not the case.
And if there was a prominent philosopher here - then he/she could also try to insist that 'his' idea is 'the' idea and even lay it down as a postulated 'absolute' ... or try to.
Apr 8, 2024
0
#116
The draw isn't 'in hand'.
But - there is another area of chess terminology ...
'pour water on the position'
'stodgy'
'neutralize the opponent's play at the expense of counterchances' ...
'choose less speculative plays' ...
If both players keep doing that - will the game end in a draw?
I would say the idea that that must follow - is ridiculous ...
play can and does sharpen up at any time.
It can explode out of the position like an earthquake or a solar flare or lightning.
Often because somebody makes a mistake or seems to ... but it doesn't have to be that way either. For play to suddenly 'sharpen up'. Or Gradually sharpen up.
But players constantly make mistakes - the game is designed so that exactly that will happen much of the time!
Apr 8, 2024
0
#117
blueemu wrote:
The Scandinavian is hyper-modern. Especially the 3. ... Qd8 line.
In a publication of historical chess games, this opening featured in the first game (from around 1600). When we looked at game 1 at the club after 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 Qd8, a senior master present said, "Ah, hypermodern!" and we all got a chuckle out of it.
Apr 8, 2024
0
#118
They could have said ultramodern or very modern or whatever and the terms would be equally useless and soon to be obsolete/ambiguous as time passed anyway ...
Coach: 'don't worry about words like hypermodern - not going to be any use.'
Student: 'but what about 'Open game' in e4 e5 games? Is it because the bishops are unrestricted after those moves?
Coach: 'the bishops are 'unrestricted' after d4 d5 too. No bishops are blocked by d4 d5.
Again - dogmatism of these terms isn't going to help your game. Similiar with 'closed' and half-open and semi-closed.'
Coach: 'These terms might mean different things to different people.
And GMs who are chess book authors might use those terms in the titles of their books and within the books.'
Student: 'but ...'
Coach: (depends on the coach - the precise situation - and how the coach and student choose to proceed.)
But idea: the pitfalls of terminologies.
Idea: The words are to serve us. Not us to serve the words.
Apr 9, 2024
0
#119
Coach: 'there's also terms like 'Closed Sicilian' and 'Open Sicilian' ...
its Significant - the difference between the two ..
Student: 'Can you show me?'
Coach: 'Sure!' (coach is elated that his student pursued that )
"++ That naming is confusing."
But the position after e4 e5 is often called 'open game' and for a very long time now.
And d4 d5 is often called 'closed game' and again - for decades and decades these terminologies have been used.
They're not about me.
You'll see them in chess books.
And you'll see 'half-open' and 'semi-closed' too.
And I think you know that.