Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings

Wow, how does a forum thread come alive like this after 3 years?

Anyway, My System does a deep dive into the French defense, and the implications of Nimzowitsch's opening rules are plainly apparent in the Caro-Kann as well, as showcased by Tigran Petrosian's handling of that defense. In both openings, white's d4 pawn becomes a target, and hypermodern analysis is needed to understand the implications of this. The classical approach alone is insufficient to understand either defense.

The hazards of being a "system" player aside (and both Tarrasch's and Nimzowitsch's limitations as players were clear to all), it is difficult for the vast majority of players to develop much skill at all without a structured approach to their tactical and positional analysis. Further, it is equally clear that combined knowledge of both "classical" and "hypermodern" schools of thought with respect to the opening makes a player more complete than they would be adhering to just one or the other.

The more recent conversation on openings in this forum showcases exactly the kind of oversimplified approach to the opening that is, in my experience, the leading cause of player stagnation. A young player will never learn to wrap their minds around higher-level concepts if they don't learn how different aspects of advantage and disadvantage can work together and transition from one to another.

As someone who offers free lessons at my local club, I'll recommend the study of Steinitz and Tarrasch to a young player just as often as (and usually sooner than) I'll suggest My System. The players who put in the time to study improve rapidly, and just as importantly they don't stop improving after absorbing the recommended subject matter, and this is no accident. Too many developing players are steered wrong by incomplete or incorrect information about the opening.

Fact still remains that the bishops are 'unrestricted' after d4 d5.
And - bishops can get out before e3 or e6.
And - after e4 e5 ... d-pawns can still be played to d3 and d6 as opposed to d4 or d5 ...
And f-bishops can develop to wherever before d3 and d6 also.
'open game' and 'closed game' sets up internal contradictions ...
why limit the student?
What's the underlying reason these misleading terms got set up?
Probably because 'open' and 'closed' are commonly used terms in language.
So words were served instead of objectivity.

@172

"What's the underlying reason these misleading terms got set up?"
++ Probably trying but failing to bring order into chaos.
Anyway: 'open games' can lead to closed positions; 'closed games' can lead to open positions.
'Open opening' would be a tautology and 'closed opening' a contradiction.

@172 and 173 - This part of the conversation is the essence of the classical v. hypermodern divide.

Putting pawns in the center (e- or d-) is intended to restrict the opponent's knights, but it also makes it difficult to mobilize the bishops - unless you're intending to use your bishops to attack those center pawns. Minor pieces, and knights especially, have greater scope of action in the middle of the board, so if you don't have tempo enough to post them in the center, the next best thing is often to have them attack the center.

The hypermodern openings don't commit pawns to the center until there is a tangible reason to do so. In response to 1. e4, both 1. ..e6 and 1. ..c6 prepare to attack the e-pawn. When the natural, classical 2. d4 is played, 2. ..d5 gives white a choice between further extension (3. e5), or reinforcement (commonly with 4. Nc3). In the first instance, black transfers the attack from e4 to d4 and develops accordingly. In the second, black can liquidate with 3. ..dxe4 and gain attacking pressure across the now-open center.

Yes, both the French Defense and the Caro-Kann came before hypermodern theory, but they are best employed by players who have a strong grounding in hypermodern theory. Petrosian and Karpov demonstrated this. Petrosian never played the common (classical) 3. Bf5 with the Caro-Kann because there are too many things white can do to kick that bishop, and there aren't any other pieces for that bishop to coordinate with once it's there. The action of the center pawns is of primary importance, and none but Nimzowitsch will explain what compensation black gets in exchange for giving up space in the center.

No 'imaginary coach' here:
Facts are facts:
Fact still remains that the bishops are 'unrestricted' after d4 d5.
And - bishops can get out before e3 or e6.
And - after e4 e5 ... d-pawns can still be played to d3 and d6 as opposed to d4 or d5 ...
And f-bishops can develop to wherever before d3 and d6 also.
'open game' and 'closed game' sets up internal contradictions ...
why limit the student?
What's the underlying reason these misleading terms got set up?
Probably because 'open' and 'closed' are commonly used terms in language.
So words were served instead of objectivity.

Stands.
/////////////////////
Regarding tygxc's note ...
"Anyway: open games can lead to closed positions; closed games can lead to open positions."
That's much more valuable than nomenclature based on what is fashionable or popular or likely following e4 e5 or d4 d5 where neither sequence restricst any bishop or what happens on page 954 of MCO or ECO
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The good coach should warn his students about the pitfalls of opening study ...
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And - DSmith appears to be making some good points in his post #174.
Objectively. Based on objective fact rather than on 'what is likely to soon happen in GM play' ...

"Putting pawns in the center (e- or d-) is intended to restrict the opponent's knights, but it also makes it difficult to mobilize the bishops"

That looks like it could use some qualifcation ...
Even if its obvious.
White pawns at d4 and e4 will deter Bc5 and Bf5 by black - obviously.
And likewise black pawns at d5 and e5 will deter white playing Bc4 and Bf4.
But there are other squares for the bishops to go to.
Plus in the Caro - black usually gets rid of white's epawn or its forced to advance to stay on the board ...
thus enabling Bf5 by black in both cases.

I was suggesting earlier that 'closed' ... like in d4 d5 ... means that neither f-bishop can then easily establish on the 'mortal' diagonals linking c4 to f7 and c5 to f2.
I've been aware of that for decades.
Whereas after e4 e5 ... the deterred diagonals from f5 to c2 and from f4 to c7 ...
are much less 'mortal' in the opening and middlegame.
Because the Kings are usually not over there on the c-file nor near them ...
and even if Q-side castled - they're still not on the checking diagonal colors of the c-bishops
tgyxc referred to this later ... rightly ...
but - fact still remains - objective fact ... Neither e4 e5 nor d4 d5 restrict the early development of Their Own bishops.

As for 'restricting the knights' I'm thinking that is also worth some discussion.
Pawns on the four central squares of the board might be in a position to advance to their fifth rank (or might not be) and bump the corresponding knight from its perch on what is often its best square on its 3rd rank on the f or c files.
Yes - obvious. But I'm mentioning for multiple reasons.

Aztec cricket bat:

I’m reading the translation that New in Chess brought out in 2016. It’s quite compelling.

I'm not spamming. Its not nonsense. You're upset by facts.
And I couldn't care less if you don't read my posts.
There's millions of members here. Literally.
Facts are facts. If you can't refute them that's your problem.

One of my favorite miniatures featured Black playing O-O-O in the Caro-Kann. Played OTB in 2011.

It might be worth noting that in Raymond Keene, Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal, he offers an interview with Bent Larsen who believed that Nimzowitsch did not really have a system, despite offering considerable value to chess players.

From DSmith's post #174 ...
"Petrosian never played the common (classical) 3. Bf5 with the Caro-Kann because there are too many things white can do to kick that bishop, and there aren't any other pieces for that bishop to coordinate with once it's there."
But - Bf5 in both the main line of the Caro and in the advance variation - is not out of business.
Its played. Heavily. Early.
It could be discussed why.

In so many games - white wins the game because of his lightsquare bishop.
With that bishop pounding black's King-position ... and black's c-bishop not doing any job of neutralizing that bishop nor gettting any degree of compensation somewhere else on the board - and that's if its doing anything at all.

But in many Caro Kann lines - you see those lightsquare bishops get exchanged.
Is white supposed to think 'Yes! I like that! Black had to make 'concessions' to get those bishops off the board'.
Yes he often does. He'll move his c-bishop more than white moved his f-bishop.
White often hits black's bishop with h4 h5 and even g4 in some lines.
When black takes white's bishop and white takes back with Qxd3 - 
then that develops white's Queen.
But white tends to have the advantage in openings anyway. Black lives with that.
////////////////////////
From DSmith's opening post:
"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 think DSmith's observation is accurate - using the interpretations of the words he apparently intends.
If the student is injected with misconceptions - or makes them on his own - or both - early - then that will flatten his learning curve. Plus cause more inefficiency than necessary. (yes they overlap)
And its good to have qualifications of terms.

@Ziryab
Nice game!
The mate in one position at the end if black takes at c6 - is called Boden's mate.
One might never actually do or see a Boden's in all of one's chess games ...
but I'm thinking its worth knowing about anyway.
Its related to a basic rook and bishop mate - but in the case of the Boden's the other bishop is doing the job the rook would do.
/////////////////////////////////////
In that game I'm noting how forlorn black's f8 bishop is on its home square throughout the game. Not exactly what a Caro player would be looking for!
So I'm thinking 'what was the remedy to prevent this? At what point?'

@186

Tarrasch 2796 in 1894-1896 was stronger than Nimzovich 2770 in 1928-1930, but not that much.
Nimzovich came later and thus knew more.
Tarrasch lost his World Championship match against Lasker in 1908, while Nimzovich could not raise the money to challenge Alekhine after 1929.
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp

My opponent muttered something about Boden’s Mate as he resigned, but there are many other possibilities. I’ve explored some lines with my students after 13…Nb8 14.Nxa7+ instead of nabbing the queen. In one line, the king gets driven to and mated on d4.

As for the bishop on f8, Black could have defended my assault on f7 with Qc7 instead of Qe7. Even so, 12…Nxe5 should have been played leaving White with only a slight advantage.

@Ziryab 
I noticed the Qc7 option - perhaps the opponent did too but didn't like something about it.
If Qc7 Bf4 then black would have Bd6?? Uh oh. That d6 bishop could 'hang' at the end of something.
Nd7 in response to white's Nf3 - well that's often the job of that b-knight of black's ...
to neutralize a white knight at e5.
But after Nf3 white has both Ne5 and Nh4.
I've forgotten a considerable amount about these lines.

I've had h4 played against me about a zillion times - instead of Nf3.
But in response to Nf3 h6 looks so Yekk! there ...

@Ziryab - I set up the position after white's Nf3 (instead of h4) on an analysis board just now.
I'm thinking h6 in response to Nf3 is the Culprit.
So I tried e6 instead - which deters Nh4 (queen takes obviously) but doesn't stop Ne5.
After Ne5 tried Nd7 Nxg6 hxg6.
The board has it as even at that point.
Note that if black has been dogmatically trained to fear NxB - then that could explain the Yekkk... h6.
Black could try Nd7 first before e6 maybe ... long time since I looked at these lines.
Anyway the point:
E4 might seem to 'stop' black playing Bf5 early. In the Caro.
But not really.

e6 is the normal move against Nf3

Adopting the second most popular line in the opening is often a useful way to provoke small errors. As these add up, a larger error sometimes occurs in the face of pressure.

Black should play ...Nd7 on autopilot whenever White threatens to bring a knight to e5. This way, Black can play ...Nxe5 if the White knight ever tries to invade Black's camp.

Yes - but do you see Ziryab's post which I will copy below -

"Ziryab #192
e6 is the normal move against Nf3
Adopting the second most popular line in the opening is often a useful way to provoke small errors. As these add up, a larger error sometimes occurs in the face of pressure."
//////////////////
Its a good thing Black has at least e6 as viable there - without an option there the Caro would be out of business.
Plus regarding the 'business' of bishop development in the openings (in my humble opinion - the most critical issue of openings)
the issues of bishops developing to squares like f4 and f5 - well every now and then the other side will swing a knight to h4 (or h5 if its black) attacking that bishop - and even if its not much in books an opponent is likely to try it out and the other player has to deal with it.
In the line shown in Ziryab's game - it appears that white can get rid of black's bishop with his knight plus double black's gpawn but many might say 'so what? White invested three knight moves to do that plus parted with his valuable g-knight plus black has a half-open h-file with his rook there and no isolani.'

Since white has options of both Ne5 and Nh4 - black can't prevent both of those attacks on his bishop after Nf3 ... He prevents Nh4 with e6. He can alternatively counter or deter Ne5 with Nd7. But he does not have a move to counter both of them.
Black's already moved his bishop twice - while white has moved his b-knight 3 times and will need to move his f-knight three times to get rid of black's bishop.
That's six knight moves. Black should worry about his two bishop moves?
No.