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
#122
@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.
Laskersnephew wrote:
The French Defense got its name from the fact that it was played in a correspondence game between London and Paris chess clubs in 1834. The Caro Kann was payed in the late 19th century. Calling either of these openings, "hypermodern" seems pretty ridiculous
I think that the French is a Classical opening and the Caro is hypermodern. The French is very much a natural alternative to ...e5 where white's centre, if there is one, is attacked with pawns and pieces. The Sicilian with ...e6 is an alternative to the French and really quite similar but much more flexible. However, I don't think it unreasonable to call the Sicilian with g6 "hypermodern", since black is essentially grovelling around, hoping to be given a break in the form of a blunder by white. OK, that's my take on the Dragon Sicilian and it won't be agreed with universally. Having been playing the Caro as second string to the Paulsen Sicilian for several years now, I've realised that the Caro is more hypermodern than many realise and black must often 0-0-0 just to survive, rather than as a winning try, although in actuality it's both.
Yes, the Caro may have been first played in the late 1800s but then, many think that Art Deco was a 1930s thing, whereas it started in about 1903 or 1904. This latter comment is to highlight misperceptions regarding the place of things in cultural history in general.
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.
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.
'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
^ true
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
tygxc wrote:
@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.
I would say that e4 e5 games were called Open Games simply because, potentially, neither of the bishops are restricted.
I've just realised the problem, actually: or the reason for a misunderstanding. When the terminology came about, the word "game" literally meant "opening". ie Queen's Bishop's Pawn's Game = English Opening. So the word "game" refers only to the first move or two. Hence arguments that an "open game" can be closed are missing the point.
I never really thought about it before but I'm sure I'm right.
InappropriateUsername3712 wrote:
And classical analysis? ya classical analysis don't understand in the 50's but you mean now? classical analysis doesn't understand hypermodern? I think 3400 stockfish understands it just fine
What's the semantic overload with the word hypermodern. It's a classification with a definition that hasn't changed within the chess Overton window since it's inception or so I thought? what else does it mean?
And the open game/semi open ect. I think it more has to do with the playing style at the time. The party line went so when e4 is played the most diagonals become open leading to a more open dynamic game
Yes, in the 50s, defences like the King's Indian were leaving maimed and injured white positions behind them on the battlefield. I learned the Orthodox KID from the white side basically from Nunn, who wrote, in the late 80s, his classic works on the KID. By then, it had been properly understood but it did take maybe 40 years.
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.
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.
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.
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/.
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.
Oh I'm sorry to hear that. I lost access to my 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.
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.
"++ 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.