Yes, I myself always play d5 in Nimzo, and c5 if possible. But you usually don't move pawns in center right away, which is typical of hypermodern openings and is also part of Caro-Kann, where you play c5 much later. Caro-Kann really seems a bit of mixture of hypermodern and classical openings to me.
Edit: Rooperi, Polish is considered an "irregular opening". But so is the Zukertort, which is hypermodern. I think that a "flank opening" is a better name for 1.b4.
I suppose I'm a cross between classical and hypermodern. I doubt anybody here isn't/. I frequently employ the KID and Nimzo/QID against d4, although I do play d5 sometimes.
Then again, I play King's Gambit against 1. ...e5, so I'm also an attack player. And then again, I play the French against 1. e4, which allows white to build a center and me to knock it down. Fun fun fun...and then again (wtf am I doing), I use the Sicilian Dragon variations at times too. So...I'm pretty mixed up.
There seems to be some confusion about the debate here. Are we discussing which style of opening is objectively "better"? If so, then obviously, neither is better and you should use the ones that best suit your style.
If we are discussing whether there is any difference between an opening in which you fight for central control by occupying it with pawns and one in which you fight for central control from the flanks or with pieces, then I contend there is a real difference between those two types of openings, and you should pick the style that best suits you.
There seems to be some confusion about the debate here. Are we discussing which style of opening is objectively "better"? If so, then obviously, neither is better and you should use the ones that best suit your style.
If we are discussing whether there is any difference between an opening in which you fight for central control by occupying it with pawns and one in which you fight for central control from the flanks or with pieces, then I contend there is a real difference between those two types of openings, and you should pick the style that best suits you.
i was just asking which idea you prefer. not which one is superior!
Does anyone else think this? There may have once been a debate about which type of opening was "best," which has been answered with the conclusion that both are good. But that hardly makes the terms meaningless. Do modern GMs find no meaningful distinctions that are worth discussing between openings like the KID and Gruenfeld versus openings like the QGD and Semi-Slav?
Yeah, I think this too. Nobody talks about hypermodern vs classical anymore, the discussion has moved on.
What you do still hear about is imbalances, trade-offs between different types of advantages, temporary and static advantages, that sort of thing. You do hear about openings that cede a space advantage to white (in return for something) and openings that don't. But that's just one type of trade-off, there's not some huge chasm between two types of opening.
I think that Hypermodern is a bit old fashioned now, probably Dynamic is better.
I playy Caro Kann and Slav as Black against strong opponents and the Modern as Black against weaker opponents.
I always open d4 but vary this against the opponent, Barry Attack, Torre against wekaer opponents, Catalan against stronger opponents.
I prefer Classical, and I think that's the kind of opening that should be learnt and played by a novice at the start of his chess career.
Having said that, right now I'm playing a game where I'm playng Classical and my opponent is responding with Hypermodern, attacking my pawn centre from the flanks. It promises to be very interesting...
No, your attitude stinks. But since the average rating on this site is below 1400 I think I'm good.
I know I stink at chess, and my rating is higer than yours... so you must really stink
Children, children: ENOUGH!!!
Don't make me turn this car around!
I like classical openings against weaker players (I'm @ 1820 here) and I like hypermodern against players who are stronger or roughly equal to me. I particularly like to play gambits against weaker players...goring gambit, fried liver attack, stuff like that. :))
You dont grow as a chess player if you dont grow as a person, and judging by some of the posts here. There are some players that will never grow at chess.
I like classical openings against weaker players (I'm @ 1820 here) and I like hypermodern against players who are stronger or roughly equal to me. I particularly like to play gambits against weaker players...goring gambit, fried liver attack, stuff like that. :))
I had the tendency to play gambits against weaker players too. But what weaker players usually lack of is positional understanding, while they have no problems with tactics. Some of them are even better at tactics, because they don't worry about their positions so much. So what you should play against weaker players, is closed positions. I mean this generally, lower rated players can have better positional than tactical understanding too. But you know how everybody says to beginners "study tactics, tactics, tactics, then openings, and then middlegame", or something similar.
Classical vs. Classical once was the norm (and probably still is?) with both sides contesting the centre with their pawns, closely backed up by pieces.
Then since the 1920s there has been Classical vs. Hypermodern, with the latter attacking the pawn centre from a distance on the flanks.
But what if both players play Hypermodern? What kind of game do you get?
lol what is the largest thread on chess.com 
.
ha jk its not this one...
But what if both players play Hypermodern? What kind of game do you get?
English symmetrical variation, for one.
What about the Polish? Is that hypermodern?
"and we all get put in boxes, little boxes, all the same"