lol, this was a game by kramnik?
Also, the dates and setting totally give it away that it is not you (and if it was, then 1996 is a pretty long time ago...)
Anyways, what's the point of showing us a game by Kramnik?
You are dense, aren't you ?
What's the point of you showing games that you claim to have played with no proof to have done so ? The CC games from here have the convenience of being on the chess.com server and linked to your profile, and surprinsingly, those are the ones you played like a ~1700 player. But hey, "trust me, in reality I'm a strong player, I just don't take CC chess seriously here, etc.".
ok. If that is what you think. But I am not here to prove that I am a strong player. In fact, I am not a strong player, my otb is only intermediate level.
BTW, this is no game played by Kramnik, only a game vs a 2100 player at an OTB game. If you look at the tourney pairings, this game was played, and there were also witnesses to the game, and the result was the one in the tournament.
Lol...I can even take a pic of the scoresheet.
If u want, challenge me to a corr game. I'll try harder on this one. I suspect you'll want unr, since you win 1 point for a win but lose like 30 for a loss.
here's a simple answer to the forrum question: if a bishop fianchetto is a bad idea, why is it one of the basics of hypermodernism?
That's indeed a simple, neat, elegant, and wrong answer.
In the same vein of "simple" answers : if hypermoderns were so good, how come that a good deal of their openings are now rarely used at top level (1.b3, 1.g3, etc.) ?
Irontiger with all due respect you are wrong. for starters, 1. b3 and 1 g3 are somewhat hypermodern but are terrible. and hypermodern openings are used at the top levels, for example, the various Indian defenses (1.d4 Nf6), the Catalan opening, the pirc defense, the Reti (1.Nf3 usually followed by c4 and fianchettoing the kingside bishop) which was a favorite of Kasparov, and many otheres are used at GM and World Championship level. please get the facts right before you call someone wrong :(
I guess you would call Praxis meiner System (Nimzowitch) hypermodern, wouldn't you ? It's literally filled with opening crap well worse than 1.b3 or 1.g3. Just read it once. From memory, there is even a 1.f4 Nf6 2.c4 inside it.
Now, if we agree to call "hypermodern openings" the openings which have been played by "hypermodern players" but not by the receeding generation, and 1.b3 and 1.g3 fall in this category, I agree very well than not all of it is inferior - basically all indian defenses are hypermodern - but some are just wrong. Stuff like 1.b3 d5 2.c4, for instance.
But whatever, your previous post was a gross simplification of the problem. "how can it be wrong to fianchetto if hypermoderns used it" assumes 1-that hypermoderns were right about their opening choices (questionable) and 2-that fianchetto must be either good or wrong in a general sense, no matter what the opening is (which is obviously wrong).
My post was an equally gross simplification of the same kind, assuming implicitely that hypermoderns were either completely right or completely wrong about openings, and picking the openings that did not stand well the test of time.
I don't consider Nimzo's "my system" to be totally hypermodern, it is more on positional play and prophylaxis. i made a post earlier in the forum saying that depending on the position/opening, a fianchetto is either usefull or a waist of time. a fianchetto is never inherently bad, but in some positions it cannot achieve it's full usefullness. my post on hypermoderns was a vent of my frustration with all the stupid and/or incorrect arguments made in this forum topic