Hyper-modern and romantic chess

Is anybody familiar with hyper-modern and romantic doctrine in chess? I also like to know about the history of these school of thoughts in chess. Can anyone introduce a reference to me?

Thanks   

I don't know of any references off the top of my head (although they would be easy to find I'd imagine), but I can tell you my summary of each as an approach to chess.

I will first describe romantic chess and then I'll address hypermodern chess. 

Romantic chess is an approach that chess is an art-form and a medium to be creative. It is better to play a creative attacking line that is slightly unsound if you get an interesting game or elegant position. Naturally, this is almost opposite to computer-like chess play of today's era. Romantic chess usually involves opening gambits/traps, sacrifices (may or may not be perfectly sound moves), and creative deflections and mating nets. Perhaps the most iconic "romantic" opening is the famous King's Gambit, but other openings have also been called romantic in nature: The Tarrasch Defense against 1.d4 (Kasparov played this opening a lot in his youth) and the Blackburn Shilling Gambit are prime examples of the type of play this play-style characterizes. 

Hyper-modern chess is completely different than romantic chess. I am the head chess writer for chesshere.com and I touched briefly on hypermodern chess in the article I am going to post on March 14th, 2020. I'll give you a "sneak-peak" with my hypermodern description here. Once I post it on chesshere.com, then feel free to use it as one reference if you like  The paragraph below is taken word for word out of said article:

Many openings play what is coined “hypermodern” theory. This type of opening is characterized by one side (usually Black) allowing the opponent to build a center, so that they may have a target to attack by undermining the central stronghold. Probably the opening I think of most when I hear “hypermodern” is the theory-heavy Grunfeld Defense. The aggressive King’s Indian Defense and Dutch Defense also follows the same motif in many lines because White usually gets the central control and Black thematically goes for the …f5 pawn break to undermine the center. Naturally, these hypermodern openings are always sharp and risky – but it is an interesting way to approach chess in contrast to the “control the center [early in the opening especially]” opening principle that chess beginners are taught to follow.

Thank you for such an informative answer. Also I appreciate that you let me read a paragraph of an unpublished paper in your journal.

So as I understand romantic chess considers chess as an art form as you said. Its main point is creativity.

On the other hand hyper-modern chess is a more algorithmic approach toward chess. Obviously this approach may be considered more scientific and it gives the player a better understanding of the game.

Have I understand you correctly so far?

Now a personal question. Which approach do you prefer? romantic or hyper-modern? And why? Do you think that hyper-modernism is destroying the beauty of chess? Cause I read that hyper-modernism has been criticized by some players.   

Anyway, thank you again. It was very kind of you to write such a complete and thorough answer.

Bump

Since you bumped a thread from 2020, I'll add a YouTube video I since created:

how the heck does that show my email below it

The hyper modern school is about a hundred years old and now has kind of a romantic sheen to it.

The Hypermodern Game of Chess - Tartakower
My System - Nimzovich