Phoenyx75, Indeed the System is fine. 1.e3 was played by Nimzowitsch (with success) and recently, it is the main Opening played by
1.e3 was played by Nimzowitsch (with success). it is the main Opening played by
More recently, it has been the main Opening played by IGM Pavel Blatny (also with success). I think 1.e3 is ok.
Hi Phoenix75,
Maybe you are right or maybe not. The fact is indeed that most of GM's don't play 1.e3 or 1.g3 or 1.b3. However, could a valid black defence be worse one move ahead? Please have a look at the following game from Kasparov, out playing Short with the Hippo as Black.
The game is the following one. Yes, Gary played the Hippo. Yes, Spassky played the hippo. And yes, Ponomariov also played the Hippo (as white!).
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1641816
Also, Kasparov played 1.e3 and 1.d3 (esp. against computers). Nimzo thought that e4 is stronger on the 15th move than on the first. Maybe he is wrong I don't know. What I do know is that 1.e3 (or 1.b3 etc...) is specifically hypermodern school. Can we really compare the Classical school with the Hypermodern school? Are they both valid?
Who knows. Maybe they are.
Hi Eric,
If you send me a complimentary book, I will write a review of your book on Amazon.
Sincerely Yours,
A Senior Patzer
Hi Phoenix75,
Maybe you are right or maybe not. The fact is indeed that most of GM's don't play 1.e3 or 1.g3 or 1.b3."
On that, atleast, we are in agreement :-)
Eric_Briffoz wrote:
However, could a valid black defence be worse one move ahead? Please have a look at the following game from Kasparov, out playing Short with the Hippo as Black.
The game is the following one. Yes, Gary played the Hippo. Yes, Spassky played the hippo. And yes, Ponomariov also played the Hippo (as white!).
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1641816
Also, Kasparov played 1.e3 and 1.d3 (esp. against computers). Nimzo thought that e4 is stronger on the 15th move than on the first. Maybe he is wrong I don't know. What I do know is that 1.e3 (or 1.b3 etc...) is specifically hypermodern school. Can we really compare the Classical school with the Hypermodern school? Are they both valid?
Who knows. Maybe they are. "
I can agree that statistics of even the best players can't prove whether an opening is or isn't good. But they are state of the art, as they say (well, technically computers play even better, but I haven't yet found a recent database of computer games). It's the best we have. But the hippo can be played just fine starting with 1.e4 or 1.d4; it seems most masters agree that that's the best way to play it :-).
Also, congratulations on writing a book about the Hippo, I thought you were just mentioning a book on the subject that you found was good :-p.
Hi Phoenix,
Yes you're right, computers never make mistakes (or so few...). However, as an IT guy, I wrote about that in the book. As an Hippo player, you get almost all Chess Software out of their DB theory as soon as move 4 or 5! (Try that with the Spanish , Sicilian or Berlin...)
On the other side, we found some chess positions which cannot be solved by the strongest software (even StockFish 8 64 Bits, Elo > 3400). Even if you let them calculate for hours. And the same position can be solved by a human brain almost instantly (few seconds).
So, yes, I still believe that humans are better than software in certain areas (Intuition and pattern recognition). This is all explained in the book.
Hi Eric,
If you send me a complimentary book, I will write a review of your book on Amazon.
Sincerely Yours,
A Senior Patzer
Hi Senior Patzer.
With pleasure, just provide your shipping address.
Regards,
Eric.
I can agree that statistics of even the best players can't prove whether an opening is or isn't good. But they are state of the art, as they say (well, technically computers play even better, but I haven't yet found a recent database of computer games). It's the best we have. But the hippo can be played just fine starting with 1.e4 or 1.d4; it seems most masters agree that that's the best way to play it :-).
Also, congratulations on writing a book about the Hippo, I thought you were just mentioning a book on the subject that you found was good :-p.
Hi Phoenix,
Yes you're right, computers never make mistakes (or so few...). However, as an IT guy, I wrote about that in the book. As an Hippo player, you get almost all Chess Software out of their DB theory as soon as move 4 or 5! (Try that with the Spanish , Sicilian or Berlin...)
On the other side, we found some chess positions which cannot be solved by the strongest software (even StockFish 8 64 Bits, Elo > 3400). Even if you let them calculate for hours. And the same position can be solved by a human brain almost instantly (few seconds).
So, yes, I still believe that humans are better than software in certain areas (Intuition and pattern recognition). This is all explained in the book.
I agree that humans are better at software in some things, particularly creativity. As I have gone on at some length in this forum, it seems to me that the best players are actually not humans or machines, but cyborgs/centaurs: that is, human players working with computers, instead of against them- doing so, they consistently beat computer programs. The reasons should be self evident. Computers are good at number crunching, but what they are -not- good at, as of yet, is adapting/learning. That's why they have to be programmed by programmers instead of by interactions with others (and with themselves). This is changing, but for now, that's the way it is. I just found an article written a few days ago that explains:
**One interesting fact about of cyborg chess, as was previously noted by Tyler Cowen in his book Average is Over, is that human-computer duos consistently defeat both the best humans and the best computers. **
Source: https://www.kitces.com/blog/cyborg-chess-advisor-teach-about-future-financial-planning/
I particularly like the following graph they made :-)...
Anyway, bottom line, I don't think we should try to play in ways that haven't been extensively mapped out by computer software yet. I think the future of chess lies in melding man's abilities with machines.
I totally agree with you on all these points.
My book goes exactly in the same direction:
"Maybe someday, faster, stronger quantum computers will perhaps be able to solve this kind of unsolvable type of position. Or maybe not. And then, other types of unsolvable solutions will be found by humans.
The key is that the human creativity and intuition will always lead the movement of artificial intelligence. These human abilities will always be the key of the uniqueness of mankind.
Its power for creativity, its consciousness, and its intuition. No scientist can define or explain exactly how and why the human consciousness is working. "
"
......
"I believe that in the near future, Fischer Random will become more popular than it is already now. However, I also believe that the Classical Chess as it exists since it was initially created will always remain alive. Because chess itself is unlimited…. I refer again to Kasparov book “Deep Thinking” to understand why.
Chess is still currently facing the problem of a huge amount of opening theory moves and millions of games available in the palm of our hands. Therefore, the authors believe (Stockfish 8 as well) that the Hippo is certainly an opening worthwhile investigating in the future!"
C'mon. 2700+ rated masters don't gleen their knowledge from paper-back books. We do. The Hippo is one solid opening. And a great lazyman's choice. Black or white the moves are identical. You only have one opening to master instead of a minimum of three. Apart from the odd mishap which dissipates as one becomes practiced in the "art of Hippo" . It takes ten iron tight moves before the Hippo emerges from the swamp. And his attack is over well-trodden squares. No matter what shuffling around his opponent does the Hippo is well versed in his mono-culture game. Some say 'attack' is the best answer to the Hippo. That is merely a whim and a theory.
C'mon. 2700+ rated masters don't gleen their knowledge from paper-back books. We do. The Hippo is one solid opening. And a great lazyman's choice. Black or white the moves are identical. You only have one opening to master instead of a minimum of three. Apart from the odd mishap which dissipates as one becomes practiced in the "art of Hippo" . It takes ten iron tight moves before the Hippo emerges from the swamp. And his attack is over well-trodden squares. No matter what shuffling around his opponent does the Hippo is well versed in his mono-culture game. Some say 'attack' is the best answer to the Hippo. That is merely a whim and a theory.
The most important thing in chess is not remembering moves by heart, but to deeply understand the concepts, the strategies, the tactics, and the ideas behind each move. That's why I think the hippo is great because it avoids direct confrontation with the opponent, and makes it less mandatory to know huge amounts of variations. For example, if you play the Berlin wall as main defence, you should study a lot more , possibly until the 20th move or so.
it seems as an ugly pattern opening judging from the name, but it can hold, yes it can hold!!
I can confirm, as it was successfully played by many GMs and world champions Spassky, Ponomariov and even Kasparov (against Short in blitz game Leuven). But it still does have a poor reputation currently, which should improve in the future.
I regularly play hippo and it is a wonderful opening if we can understand the ideas of it. It has a poor reputation just because it does not have forced lines at the beginning and it gives a chance for some creative play! But nowadays, opening preparation has become more of memorization involving a long series of forced variations analysed through chess engines with creativity and originality taking back seat. Anybody who wants to play some original chess will surely like the vast choices the hippo provides.
I regularly play hippo and it is a wonderful opening if we can understand the ideas of it. It has a poor reputation just because it does not have forced lines at the beginning and it gives a chance for some creative play! But nowadays, opening preparation has become more of memorization involving a long series of forced variations analysed through chess engines with creativity and originality taking back seat. Anybody who wants to play some original chess will surely like the vast choices the hippo provides.
Well, I couldn't say it better than you did. This is one of the main reasons why those types of 'non-forced' openings are so fun to play. You get to play entertaining and fun chess with the hippo, from the very beginning of the game. Instead, in the Spanish you need to know a huge tree of variations by heart until the 15th move. It's a personal choice.
I think GM's will start playing chess openings which are non-forceful in the near future just to avoid engine-assisted opening preparation of their opponents!
i think u missed an important point about the Hippo.
It can be good only according circumstances.
For example in Short-Kasparov, Gary used this set up to counter white's development (e6 to block Bc4, then b6 logical to find a good diagonal). Gary began with a modern defence and switched to a hippo because it was justified.
Playing Hippo just to play an hippo is usually a bad choice, for example :
https://www.chess.com/video/player/how-to-destroy-the-hippo
The Hippo system is played usually by lazy players and has several drawbacks :
- not always relevant.
- u always play the same thing, so u play automatic mode and u don't think. And moreover, u just play the same type of positions so u couldn't improve much using it (while Ruy Lopez is very rich, ok it is complicated but u will learn many things, I can't say the same for the Hippo).
i think u missed an important point about the Hippo.
It can be good only according circumstances.
For example in Short-Kasparov, Gary used this set up to counter white's development (e6 to block Bc4, then b6 logical to find a good diagonal). Gary began with a modern defence and switched to a hippo because it was justified.
Playing Hippo just to play an hippo is usually a bad choice, for example :
https://www.chess.com/video/player/how-to-destroy-the-hippo
The Hippo system is played usually by lazy players and has several drawbacks :
- not always relevant.
- u always play the same thing, so u play automatic mode and u don't think. And moreover, u just play the same type of positions so u couldn't improve much using it (while Ruy Lopez is very rich, ok it is complicated but u will learn many things, I can't say the same for the Hippo).
That's correct. It is a system in which you have to react and counter-attack at the right moment. Sometimes that moment can be very soon in the opening, but sometimes it can be later in the middle game. This is the reason why it is a typical Hypermodern Strategical opening system. Tiger's Modern also has a beautiful Chapter (5) concerning the Hippo System, in which he strongly believes.
In page 248, he wrote:
"I believe few players have ever taken the Hippo seriously, but I intend to show this point of view to be mistaken. There is nothing wrong with the Hippopotamus!".
And I totally agree with him.
Hippo is one of the easiest to learn but one of the hardest opening to play correctly! Also it is one of the most positional opening leading to wild tactics!
In Tiger's Modern you'll notice he has no Hippos in which white played an early c4 followed by Nc3. In all examples the Nc3 is played blocking the c pawn. In one example that Knight doesn't block the c pawn but the white Bishop goes to c4, not a pawn. Tiger didn't talk about it, but the belief is that when a pawn is sitting on c4 early along with all of white's other typical plays in the center the Hippo becomes unplayable because there is too much for black to deal with then.
Also, in Martin's book The Hippopotamus Rises the pawn doesn't arrive on c4 early in any of the games.
Having said that, the thought of playing just the Hippo as black and white has intrigued me in the past and still does. Perhaps a pawn sitting on c4 early is not so awful for black, I think black has still played the Hippo at times anyway.
In Tiger's Modern you'll notice he has no Hippos in which white played an early c4 followed by Nc3. In all examples the Nc3 is played blocking the c pawn. In one example that Knight doesn't block the c pawn but the white Bishop goes to c4, not a pawn. Tiger didn't talk about it, but the belief is that when a pawn is sitting on c4 early along with all of white's other typical plays in the center the Hippo becomes unplayable because there is too much for black to deal with then.
Also, in Martin's book The Hippopotamus Rises the pawn doesn't arrive on c4 early in any of the games.
Having said that, the thought of playing just the Hippo as black and white has intrigued me in the past and still does. Perhaps a pawn sitting on c4 early is not so awful for black, I think black has still played the Hippo at times anyway.
Don't be scared of c4. There is a chapter about this in my book... nothing to be worried about.
A new book is now available on amazon about the Hippo as a defence but also about the Hippo Reversed (as white). World champions Spassky and Ponomariov played this system with success... Maybe an opening to surprise your opponents...
https://www.amazon.com/Easy-Guide-Hippo-Attack-Defence/dp/1973974428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501452485&sr=1-1&keywords=hippo+chess
Right after publication, I saw a game between Kasparov Vs Short featuring another Hippo.... So is the system so bad as it seems?