Classical players don't understand Hypermodern openings

You can't use classical analysis to judge hypermodern openings.  When you do, you completely misrepresent the strength of the opening, and mislead other novice players as to the right way to approach them.

Those who have been following the "French VS Caro-Kann" correspondence match have seen how bad that level of misunderstanding is even for otherwise-decent chess players.  It's not just the French Defense, either.  The Reti, the English, the Nimzo-Larsen, the KID, the Modern Defense, the Grunfeld Defense, and any of a number of other hypermodern openings which classical players on this site consistently fail to wrap their brains around, and somehow feel the need to spread their own ignorance as though they were an authority on the matter.

The Opening is a fight for the center, but there are two fundamental approaches to this.  The "Classical" approach seeks to occupy the center with pawns, while the "Hypermodern" approach attacks into and across it with pieces.  In the former school, the big pawn center was an asset, to the latter, it is simply a target.

So my appeal is this - if you are a classical player, and you don't want to read My System because it's too hard, then don't pretend to understand what any hypermodern opening is about.  Young players on this site, who have aspirations of getting past the amateur level, will eventually need to learn the hypermodern concepts in order to reach such playing strengths, and if they get the wrong idea about them, it will be 100 times harder for them to unlearn the nonsense they've absorbed than it will be for them to learn it right in the first place.

Classical players can be quite strong players, but they can't teach beginners how to handle the hypermodern stuff.  Bad information leads to bad habits, which is the main reason chess players stop improving.

Just another crazy person, quite common around here in case you didn't notice. 

I would not be so quick to dismiss Dsmith42 as another crazy person around here.

I'm tired of reading you have to play 1e4 first ... before you play the London or else you will never excel at the game ... hogwash!

The French Defense got its name from the fact that it was played in a correspondence game between London and Paris chess clubs in 1834. The Caro Kann was payed in the late 19th century. Calling either of these openings, "hypermodern" seems pretty ridiculous

I think the word hypermodern has been tossed around. The Modern Defense it self was first used in the 1900s. 

I think even the Catalan isn't a hypermodern defence - I wrote a thread a while back arguing this, despite yes it has been called hypermodern by masters. If your first move is d4 you're doing the classic thing of building in the centre and directly fighting for it. The MAIN definition of a hypermodern defence is not occupying the centre with pawns, yet with the Catalan you're all the time trying to occupy it with pawns. Fianchettoing a bishop is not the only requirement to be a hypermodern opening - classical players fianchettoed their bishops all the time. Noone who knows anything about chess is going to call the French or Sicilian a "hypermodern defence" yet they regularly fianchetto their bishops.  

where do you fianchetto a bishop in the French? 

It sometimes comes up as a useful place for the bishop due to the e6 pawn, similar to in the english defence or queen's indian - maybe "regularly" is a stretch but it happens against me. When the centre isn't completely blocked. Or sometimes it will go on that diagonal after going to d7 first. Of course Ba6 trying to exchange the bishops is more common. 

But many of them are indeed authorities on ignorance and misunderstanding.

@blueemu - That is unfortunately true.

@Laskersnephew - while the French Defense does pre-date the hypermodern school, the hypermodern school itself was intended as an explanation of the stronger elements of the earlier "romantic" style of play.  It wasn't really properly understood until Nimzowitsch revealed the dynamics of the pawn chain, and it is the single most examined opening in My System.  The French Defense can't be played effectively without looking at it from the hypermodern perspective.  The Caro-Kann isn't hypermodern at all, this much is true, but even it can't be played effectively without knowing the hypermodern elements - Petrosian was its most accomplished practitioner, and he was unquestionably a student of Nimzowitsch.

@Uhohspaghettio1 - The Sicilian Defense, from black's perspective, is most certainly a hypermodern opening, and is best understood using Nimzowitsch.  Again, it's older than the school, but it is used most effectively by players who understand the hypermodern game.

Characterizing an opening as "classical" or "hypermodern" means only this - the former is best explained by Tarrasch, and the latter is best explained by Nimzowitsch.  Of course, there are openings (like the Caro-Kann) which aren't really either one, but that's not what I'm taking issue with.

What was valuable in Nimzowitsch has long ago been absorbed into the chess mainstream. And what has proven less useful has been discarded. In fact, in  most grandmaster games today we see the Italian game, Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit declined and Slavs where all the play is based on classical principles.  The Hypermoderns enriched and broadened our understanding of chess, but the built on the foundation created by Steinitz, Tarrasch, et al. Of course Steinitz, Tarrasch and Lasker all played the French defense with great skill

We also see Grunfeld, Najdorf, etc. 

For sure! Chess just keeps getting richer. 

The French is much hypermodern than the Caro. 

The Scandinavian is hyper-modern. Especially the 3. ... Qd8 line.

But I like playing hypermodern openings that are good. 

There's nothing wrong with the Scandinavian. I don't play it... I play the Najdorf. But I've outgrown most of my prejudices over opening systems.