Is rapid development ever a mistake in the opening?

I recently started focusing on simple rapid development in the opening (i.e. parring threats with development so against the petroff playing Nc3, playing either a ruy or guicco against e5, the open sicilian, the winawer or 2. Nf3 against the French (had good results against the French, but cant find a really efficient way to develop). The same for black, looking to develop efficiently, steal tempi, etc.

Basically simple classical chess, develop quickly fight for the center.

I believe its starting show good results, however had a few questions. Is there ever an opening where this is a mistaken strategy? Does this lead to drawish games? (due to piece exchanges).

I guess what I am asking is, I am aware of the hypermodern school, with the gruenfelds and retis and the indians, but was it objectively better that classical chess? Or just an extension of chess in general?

Apologies for rambling.

Why play Nc3 only against the Petroff?

The same position is reached, and you don't have to bother with the Ruy Lopez.

Rapid development is important, particularly if some of it threatens your opponent. But you can’t exclude Pawn moves that either help control the center or are prophylactic moves like a3, h3, a6, and h6 to keep opposing Bishops from pinning your Knights or opposing Knights from finding a good 5^th rank outpost.

its not losing

You clearly dont understand dynamics.

Neither of you have yet proven your cases. If there is a refutation, show the lines - if there isn't, acknowledge that you know the claimed refutation and explain why it's wrong.

You guys are still arguing about nothing.

ahh, he has been making offensive comments at people at other threads. Its not really nothing, sorry for bringing the argument into this thread

After that position, we can see white has sacrificed 3 pawns, but he has a lot of activity. White has two bishops on long diagonals, his position is open, and after Nf3 is ready to facilitate castling. Black however, has no pieces out yet compared to blacks bishops, his pieces still stuck behind pawns and it will be at least 3 moves before Black can castle. On top of that, the evaluation is just -0.5 and it cant be too bad for White. Usually after losing 3 pawns, you would be -3 or somewhere there. But since the evaluation is -0.5 that means White has almost sufficient, if not fully sufficient, compensation for the 3 pawns.

By the way, anyone can see that guy Asunas account? Has he been banned or am I just blocked from seeing him?

Capablanca often gets the credit for highlighting the importance of purposeful opening moves in his games, rather than just rapid.  Am sure there were strong players doing this before him. 

As white "doing the unpacking" is unlikely to give you a very bad game, but also unlikely to give you any advantage.

Long story short, this is why you should play 1.d4 d5 and 1.e4 e5 with both colors until you are 2000.  General principles apply.  Develop fast and castle.  When you start getting into all of these exceptions, which are in many of the other lines, you confuse yourself.  For example, it is typically bad for Black to castle quickly in the 4.Be3 line of the Pirc or in the KIA vs Sicilian.  When you have to worry about exceptions, you get these problems.  Stick to openings that follow basic principles like the Ruy Lopez and QGD. 

Hahahahah

yup agreed

Your question seem flawed at its base, so your conclusion must obviously be shaky. if - if. Sometimes I run, sometimes I hide, sometimes I´m scared of you.. lalalala I am a little surprised almost 2000 in doubt regarding the existence of such thing as "feel" for the position. Where the principality of the principles fluctuate, interlaced with the current status of affairs. Because that how it presents itself. And with a terrifying scream. From the current point of my relation with chess, it is absurd. Playing, and observing - a huge part of the successful play is to be able to ´broke´ the emerging position. To maintain mutability in case it is needed. Maybe the true form of your question should be: how often the mutability is needed?

 I will be monitoring your discussion in case you could rain down some sudden enlightenment in regards to the discussed topic.

Not sure what your saying...

GM Daniel Naroditsky thinks we should not always play the opening following general principles, he says that when we insist in following general principles we might overlook opportunities for gaining advantages, he says concrete calculation is over all important.  I think he might be right, although I am a little bit too traditional in my playing style to follow his advice.   

That's an interesting question.

In some openings there are sort of waiting games. As a 1.e4 player (and I play 1.e4 e5 as black) in particular what comes to mind is the queen's bishop. There are many times it doesn't know where it wants to be yet, so it waits until the opponent has made some choices.

But in general I think your approach is excellent. Just trust the principals even if you don't know the theory or the move seems scary, and then analyze afterwards to learn from the results. Rules of thumb have exceptions, but when you're unsure, it's better to trust them than to work against them.

As for hypermodern, it's just an extension. Anything that gives you a safe king and active pieces is fine. Classical openings tend to be more logical and less justified by fancy tactics (that's why they were discovered first). So lower rated players are usually advised to play classically at first so that they're more easily able to absorb some of this underlying logic. In hypermodern openings, logic still applies, but there tends to be an extra layer of tactics and strategic finesse to work through.