@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.
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.
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.
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.
Probably it's best of all to forget the imaginary coach and to pay more attention to what tygxc and I are trying to explain. There was some reason to the old nomenclature. After 1. e4 e5, there's no reason for any of the four bishops to be restricted. After 1. d4 ...d5, black's c8 bishop will be restricted unless black plays the QGA. But if black plays the QGD, the c8 bishop is hemmed in for the time being. In the main line of the Slav, however, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dc then if white chooses 5. a4, which is probably main line, black can play Bf5. In the old days they probably played 5. e4 b5, where black tries to hold the pawn and the c8B will again be blocked by e6.
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.
You're talking nonsense and spamming. No-one is going to plough through all of that, including me.
<<Nobody in America plays or gives two hoots about cricket! In America, cricket is a very loud insect that resides outdoors and nothing else!>>
That must be a terrible situation to endure. You must realise, though, that you're outnumbered. Pakistan, India, Australia, NZ, South Africa, most of the Caribbean, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan, UK. The list goes on and on. They're even playing it in Japan.
OK fair enough explanation. Peace out even to non-cricket-lovers.
Aztec cricket bat:
What did you say? That he French and Caro are hypermodern? Perhaps I misunderstood but the French is most certainly not hyper modern and neither is the caro.
Second "my System", really? That book reads as a technical manual akin to Ethics by Baruch Spinoza who wrote a world famous philosophy book in the language of math, modes, and attributes. I wouldn't advise anyone to read it because there's much easier ways nowadays without even opening a book to learn hyper modern concepts. I think it would have been more popular is they ever put out a world champion and nowadays everyone plays universal. It's more important as a beginner to learn classical (taking the center). The exception to the rule is as a beginner who wants to learn for d4-d5 the brother/sister nimzo complex shows you everything d4-d5 has to offer. For an intermediate player the KID is good to learn. However I would stay away from the modern and the pirc, and the catalan until your around 1800-2000 and those are the hyper modern ones there's many more. The main reason as far as the kings indian is concerned if that in the pirc/modern I used to think they were the same thing in a transpositional sense. They are not. In the KID you get a cramped position but a fixed structure facing your opponents kingside and dark square control which you can strategize with. The tabiyas are easy to study. In the modern or pirc NOPE you don't get any of that, it could happen but it's not promised and you cant force it. The modern is rather nuanced/fluid there's vast amounts of theory and all of it is sharp and as the black side of that sharp cramped position good luck the consequence of you going wrong is in disproportion to your opponent who has all the space who makes an inaccurate move while you do that it's game over. I cant tell you how many guys I play d4e4f4 and h4 with a quasi 150 attack and mate in 20 moves. If you wanna experiment play it for fun do it, I do but I wouldn't study it seriously unless I was more serious and much better. 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
I’m reading the translation that New in Chess brought out in 2016. It’s quite compelling.
You're talking nonsense and spamming. No-one is going to plough through all of that, including me.
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.
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.
One of my favorite miniatures featured Black playing O-O-O in the Caro-Kann. Played OTB in 2011.
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.
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?'
Nimzo didn't have a system but it was a catchy title. Opinion is split on how strong N was but Tarrasch was stronger.
@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
I imagine because its the best move in both variations. Certainly in the Advance and in the Orthodox, Nf6 really isn't much good against a strong, positional player. I get some success with Nd7 but mainly because an opponent hasn't studied it.
@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?'
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.
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.
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.
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.