who is blue deep?
it was just a joke I know you were talking about the chess program Deep Blue who beat Kasparov.
ok, to answer your question:
when we start chess, most people tell us to
1. put pawns in the center
2. castle
3. develop your pieces
4. activate your rooks
that's what I first learned. then, when people hear about hypermodern stuff, they don't want to learn it because it sort of contradicts the 4 rules above in a way.
yeah, because when you castle, you activate and develop your rooks.
Pirc, king's indian defense/attack, queen's indian, grunfeld, nimzo... it's not unpopular. This isn't the 1920s. Masters learned 100 years ago to not be so dogmatic.
Maybe no one knows where it is.
Pirc, king's indian defense/attack, queen's indian, grunfeld, nimzo... it's not unpopular. This isn't the 1920s. Masters learned 100 years ago to not be so dogmatic.
yeah, but the classical openings are much more common than the hypermodern ones.
Actually I find the hyper-modern style to be far too popular. Seems like I constantly play games where my opponent goes out of her way to fianchetto a bishop or spends several moves repositioning a knight.
Pirc, king's indian defense/attack, queen's indian, grunfeld, nimzo... it's not unpopular. This isn't the 1920s. Masters learned 100 years ago to not be so dogmatic.
yeah, but the classical openings are much more common than the hypermodern ones.
That's simply not true, they're played probably just as much.
There is no such thing as classical vs hypermodern anymore. That ended nearly 100 years ago.
Pirc, king's indian defense/attack, queen's indian, grunfeld, nimzo... it's not unpopular. This isn't the 1920s. Masters learned 100 years ago to not be so dogmatic.
yeah, but the classical openings are much more common than the hypermodern ones.
After 1.d4 1..Nf6 is somewhere between 2 to 3 times more popular than 1..d5 at the master level. A subsect of those 1..Nf6 games will be steered back to classical lines (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5), but the grand majority will not.
Yeah but "new wave" is "new wave" and it isn't pretentious as "hypermodern."
Then again as a group, chess players tend to be a pretentious bunch that like to act smarter and more cultured than they are. (which is hilarious since many of the top international players are high school dropouts with poorer educations than any thuggish minor-league footballer.)
The ironic part is you're acting quite pretentious in this post. You don't happen to play chess, do you? :')
Pirc, king's indian defense/attack, queen's indian, grunfeld, nimzo... it's not unpopular. This isn't the 1920s. Masters learned 100 years ago to not be so dogmatic.
yeah, but the classical openings are much more common than the hypermodern ones.
That's simply not true, they're played probably just as much.
There is no such thing as classical vs hypermodern anymore. That ended nearly 100 years ago.
does the sicilian count as classical, hypermodern or both?
The hypermodern school is so last century. We are of the opinion that the only school of chess that is relevant is The Dragons “Super-Accelerated-Neo-Post-Modern-Uber-Dynamic-Turbo Attack” for white, and the “Super-Accelerated-Neo-Post-Modern-Uber-Dynamic-Turbo Defence” for black. >:[
There is no such thing as pure classical and pure hypermodern schools anymore. Today's players have absorbed ideas from both schools. Rook lift, blockade, fianchetto bishops, prophylaxis, etc were all hypermodern ideas that have become part of today's players arsenals.
There is no such thing as pure classical and pure hypermodern schools anymore. Today's players have absorbed ideas from both schools. Rook lift, blockade, fianchetto bishops, prophylaxis, etc were all hypermodern ideas that have become part of today's players arsenals.
for example, the sicilian dragon, fianchettoes the dark squared bishop onto g7, while also playing rook lifts like Rc4 and stuff like that. I was just wondering, are exchange sacs hypermodern ideas?
What line of the Dragon are you playing with a rook lift..?
Hypermodern openings:
Nimzo-indian
Queens Indian
Gruenfeld
Alekhine
What about the above list would you call not popular?
Pirc, king's indian defense/attack, queen's indian, grunfeld, nimzo... it's not unpopular. This isn't the 1920s. Masters learned 100 years ago to not be so dogmatic.
yeah, but the classical openings are much more common than the hypermodern ones.
That's simply not true, they're played probably just as much.
There is no such thing as classical vs hypermodern anymore. That ended nearly 100 years ago.
does the sicilian count as classical, hypermodern or both?
Depends on the line. I'd say both.
They're boring games. Plain and simple.
-Former reti & english player
ifoody wrote:
Actually, as i went through opening theory i met the hypermodern school, which actually says shortly (it says much more of course) - You need to occupie the center with your pieces, have them on their best squares, and always have the potential for a pawn advance in the center, maintain it. Actually i think that's a very good idea, also a very succecful idea, the hypermodern openings have high chances of succes, for example the reti opening. Then why hypermodernism isn't popular? Why everybody just keep playing the classical lines? Maybe we should look forward to play the new and modern chess, look to the future? Even blue deep in his games chose Nf3 as his opening.
What do you think?
_____________________________________________________
Hypermodern chess is advanced chess practice for strong players. Classical chess is more straightforward and intuitive and therefore it is practiced by those weaker players who are still learning how to spot tactics and mating nets on the chessboard.
In actual chess games Classical and Hypermodern theories are intertwined, mixed together.
The 2 theories are based on the principle of controlling the center.
Classical Theory - Control the center (the squares d4,d5,e4,e5) by occupying it with your pawns and pieces.
Hypermodern Theory - Control the center using the power of your pawns and pieces. With this method you do not create targets in the center for your opponent to attack.
The following is an example of a clash between Classical Theory and Hypermodern Theory. It is found in the Sicilian Defense. The following moves are a typical move sequence of an opening variation known as the Sicilian Najdorf: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6. Set up a board and play the moves. Then the important thing to notice about the position is that while Black's pawns and pieces are controlling key squares in the center none of them is occupying any central square. Black's pawns at d6, and e6 are not occupying any central squares, yet they are controlling key central squares with their power. Black's N at f6 is controlling key squares in the center with its power, yet it is not occupying a central square. Black is applying the Hypermoden theory of chess in this opening variation.
By contrast White is applying the Classical theory of chess. Notice that White's pawn at e4 is occupying the central square e4. And, White's N at d4 is occupying the central square d4.
If you would like to know more, please let me know.
thunder_tiger123 wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
thunder_tiger123 wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
Pirc, king's indian defense/attack, queen's indian, grunfeld, nimzo... it's not unpopular. This isn't the 1920s. Masters learned 100 years ago to not be so dogmatic.
yeah, but the classical openings are much more common than the hypermodern ones.
That's simply not true, they're played probably just as much.
There is no such thing as classical vs hypermodern anymore. That ended nearly 100 years ago.
does the sicilian count as classical, hypermodern or both?
There have been multiple revolutions in chess sinse the Hypermodern.
The Sicilian was part of the Soviet School of Chess Theory, led by players such as Keres and Botvinik. Back in the 50's
Actually, as i went through opening theory i met the hypermodern school, which actually says shortly (it says much more of course) - You need to occupie the center with your pieces, have them on their best squares, and always have the potential for a pawn advance in the center, maintain it. Actually i think that's a very good idea, also a very succecful idea, the hypermodern openings have high chances of succes, for example the reti opening. Then why hypermodernism isn't popular? Why everybody just keep playing the classical lines? Maybe we should look forward to play the new and modern chess, look to the future? Even blue deep in his games chose Nf3 as his opening.
What do you think?