hi guys
"Hypermodernism" Debate
Sort:
hi sasuke
Steinitz derived the KIA from a position quite similar to the Vienna set-up
It didn't generate theory back then but it comes to show that things are somewhat connected in a natural way...
Dec 11, 2020
0
#26
nderroe wrote:
Steinitz derived the KIA from a position quite similar to the Vienna set-up
It didn't generate theory back then but it comes to show that things are somewhat connected in a natural way...
not completely related to the discussion, but I feel like the KID and KIA are super different :/
Dec 11, 2020
0
#28
In the 1500s up to the mid-1800s, we had the "Romantic" style of chess (quick attacking, sacrificial, ignoring development in favor of fireworks and aggression).
Then came the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, which we now call the "Classical" style of chess (securing the center with pawns, emphasis on static positional gains by occupying those key squares).
But, at the time, this new school of chess thought wasn't called the "Classical" style of play: it was called the "MODERN" style of play! (Because at the time, this more positional/pragmatic style of play was considered a "modern" advancement over the Romantic style of play.)
Then, in 1925 and onward, a new school of thought entered the discussion: the "Hypermodern" school of thought (Nimzowitsch famously put his stamp on it, with his book, "My System"), where it was encouraged to "control" the center with pieces, rather than occupy it with pawns.
So we had the:
1. "Romantic" style
2. "Modern" style (which we now call the "Classical")
3. "Hypermodern" style
Dec 11, 2020
0
#29
TestPatzer wrote:
In the 1500s up to the mid-1800s, we had the "Romantic" style of chess (quick attacking, sacrificial, ignoring development in favor of fireworks and aggression).
Then came the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, which we now call the "Classical" style of chess (securing the center with pawns, emphasis on static positional gains by occupying those key squares).
But, at the time, this new school of chess thought wasn't called the "Classical" style of play: it was called the "MODERN" style of play! (Because at the time, this more quiet style of play was considered a "modern" advancement over the Romantic style of play.)
Then, in 1925 and onward, a new school of thought entered the discussion: the "Hypermodern" school of thought (Nimzowitsch famously put his stamp on it, with his book, "My System"), where it was encouraged to "control" the center with pieces, rather than occupy it with pawns.
So we had the:
1. "Romantic" style
2. "Modern" style (which we now call the "Classical")
3. "Hypermodern" style
ooh that makes sense 
so what would the next one be called? the ultramodern?
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
TestPatzer wrote:
In the 1500s up to the mid-1800s, we had the "Romantic" style of chess (quick attacking, sacrificial, ignoring development in favor of fireworks and aggression).
Then came the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, which we now call the "Classical" style of chess (securing the center with pawns, emphasis on static positional gains by occupying those key squares).
But, at the time, this new school of chess thought wasn't called the "Classical" style of play: it was called the "MODERN" style of play! (Because at the time, this more quiet style of play was considered a "modern" advancement over the Romantic style of play.)
Then, in 1925 and onward, a new school of thought entered the discussion: the "Hypermodern" school of thought (Nimzowitsch famously put his stamp on it, with his book, "My System"), where it was encouraged to "control" the center with pieces, rather than occupy it with pawns.
So we had the:
1. "Romantic" style
2. "Modern" style (which we now call the "Classical")
3. "Hypermodern" style
ooh that makes sense
so what would the next one be called? the ultramodern?
and then the ultra hyper super da duper *tries to sound fancy but lame words* modern?
It's very confusing....
Nimzowitsch prescribes: "Fight for the center by keeping at least 1 pawn controlling the small center".
(Unfortunately I don't have mysystem.exe installed here to check this out)
But he's also the hypermodern theorist by par excellence
Dec 11, 2020
0
#33
modernist chess is a thing, and it is usually used to refer to the chess that came after the romantic era but prior to the hypermodern era and began with the positional discoveries of Steinitz.
just because an opening eventually uses center pawns to contest central squares doesnt make it not-hypermodern, although some openings are a bit more borderline than others in these classifications. Its a family resemblance term after all.
hypermodern openings where played prior to the hypermodern chess era. Strong players like Henry Bird, Howard Staunton and John Owen where playing hypermodern openings in ways we still do today in the 1850s! its just that the propriety of this type of play didnt become fully integrated into chess orthodoxy until later.
Dec 11, 2020
0
#34
As far as I know, the name was first used in Tartakower’s “The Hypermodern Game of Chess”. The name was a humorous response to Tarrasch’s “The Modern Game of Chess”, which the hypermoderns regarded as being an outdated view of how the game was played.
Here's the thread I've been waiting for! There are many openings (like the French Defense!) which can be treated from both a Classical (which used to be called the "Modern School") and a Hypermodern perspective. It's how the position is treated dynamically which creates the distinction.
The hypermodern theory extended positional understanding beyond the static and into the dynamics of a position. The old Steinitz adage that "tactics flow from a superior position" somewhat neglected concepts such as tension (lingering capture options), blockade, and line-opening.
A hypermodern player is attacking in the center, even when he is using a classical opening. Nimzowitsch teaches the player how to keep pieces mobile, connected, and active even when starved for space (as black often is). This is why the hypermodern defenses remain more popular than the hypermodern openings for white (such as the Reti, which nonetheless is an excellent choice).
If you want to see the Hypermodern School taken to its ultimate form, the player to study is Tigran Petrosian. The more you look at his games, the more he resembles a "super-Nimzowitsch". No one put the principles of My System to better use. Even though his opening repertoire seems classical, the positional dynamics he employs are purely hypermodern.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
modernist chess is a thing, and it is usually used to refer to the chess that came after the romantic era but prior to the hypermodern era and began with the positional discoveries of Steinitz.
just because an opening eventually uses center pawns to contest central squares doesnt make it not-hypermodern, although some openings are a bit more borderline than others in these classifications. Its a family resemblance term after all.
hypermodern openings where played prior to the hypermodern chess era. Strong players like Henry Bird, Howard Staunton and John Owen where playing hypermodern openings in ways we still do today in the 1850s! its just that the propriety of this type of play didnt become fully integrated into chess orthodoxy until later.
I've been working with John Owen's eponymous defense recently - and it is fascinating in its positional dynamics. Had to learn the hard way that Staunton's recommendation for an early c5 was wrong, though. Once you get past that, however, it is a lot of fun to play. Black is trying to fix, blockade, and then destroy d4 (so it's best to play 1. e4 e6 2. d4 b6, rather than playing b6 immediately), and white can't really force the d5 advance or adequately support this advanced queen pawn. White also has trouble supporting e4, and though he can advance it, this opens the long diagonal for black's b7 bishop. White gets some dynamic compensation for this central weakness, but it's an all-out fight for the center right from the beginning.
Seems to work up to the 1900 level just fine (I have not had a chance to throw it against an Expert yet). If d4 falls, white loses almost immediately, and even when it doesn't, white doesn't really have a safe way to castle. Black has weaknesses, too, such as the b5 square (which is why the c-pawn stays home rather than advancing), but the counterplay seems more than adequate.
Really fun stuff, especially for a hypermodern like me.
ok could we get back to the topic at hadn?
edit: *hand