Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings

It is more of an illustration that the Caro isn't as solid as some people imagine. It's like there's a belief that it's dull, safe and sensible, whereas it really isn't. People play it to win, same as they try to win with the French or the Sicilian.

Same here. I think my mother died or maybe my wife's father. Actually that may have been it. I got very busy and just dropped chess. Came back a couple of years later and my account no longer existed and someone had my user name. He's still got it.

There's no way I could get that Daily rating back. 2225 is just about where the REALLY serious players start. The ones who regularly put three hours into one move. I don't even play it now. Reached 2125 in this account and then totally lost interest. At the time I found it a very good way to make myself stronger and I was pretty ok over the board back then. Trying to get back into chess but definitely not daily.

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 ...

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.

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.

I think 1. d4 is the strongest first move, maybe by quite a way. It's understandable to play it all the time and gradually perfect all your responses.

There might be truth in the legend but changing it shows more than a hint of paranoia from FIDE. Uncontrolled paranoia = crazy. Paranoia is actually very healthy when you're defending a Sicilian from a player who just produced what seems to be a series of good moves that are also highly aggressive and you aren't familiar at all with the position.

Not when you're a chess governing body.

That's a bit strong. I don't like FIDE and so I wouldn't put anything past them. If it turns out to be untrue for whatever reason, has any harm really been done? In fact, I had heard a similar story but I did spend 5 months travelling around India in 76 and talked to a lot of people about chess. Sometimes things we hear are so deeply buried in our subconscious that we aren't quite sure if we just made it up or if it's a genuine memory. It doesn't really matter because whatever its origins, it's still an idea or a thought.

You misunderstand the idea. What we're talking about is something that's called "keeping the draw in hand". "In hand" is a reference to the reins on a horse and there is a strong inference that you remain in control as much as possible, you don't go on all-out attack and you remain capable of steering the game into safer, calmer waters.

That, of course, is a reference to when you go swimming with your horse. I like mixed metaphors and think that since they are metaphoric, then why not go the whole hog? (etc)

'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.

Then you completely misunderstand what is being discussed.

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!

Keeping the draw in hand can be no more than an attempt to do so.

Exactly the same as "objectivity" meaning an attempt to bring in all the factors. It's only an attempt and cannot be considered to be more than that. I think perhaps you might be taking your cue from Elroch or similar .... from people who do not even know the meaning of words like "objectivity", which they bandy about to try to impress people.

(It also looks like you're trying to reinvent the wheel, which you keep in hand for if and when you lose your grip on the reins you're trying to control your hog with, when you go swimming.)

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.

Yes, wasn't it Bronstein who brought that in?

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.

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 )

Hypermodern in 1475

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259987

In the QGD there's a natural tendency to want to play e3. That isn't the case after 1. e4. e4 is supported by pieces and anyway is more mobile. The nature of 1. d4 is that white very often keeps the pawn there and removes it only if there's advantage to do so. Also, black very often supports d5 with e6. It's less common in 1. e4 ... e5 games for black to support e5 with d6. Hence the distinction remains reasonable, since the word "game" means "opening" in that context.

i wouldn't pay for that coach, except to go away.

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.