How to couunter hypermordenism?

Hi friends. We all know we counter hypermodern openings like modern, owen's defence and nimzo-larsen. We may simply get the centre right at the start, but you've got to counter a strong middle and endgame and an unreachable king, featuring fianchettoed bishops and safe middle pawns. Could we please discuss how we one should counter any hypermodern opening in general and what are the ideas behind it? 

How to counter Hypermodernism?

I think there's something to this general attitude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-c-_QLCzc0 , in short, slowly improve your position, don't rush.

                                                                             ______________________

First it is not a general attitude.  The general concensus is that there is a constant interplay between Hypermodern and Classical center control  throughout the game.  Here is an example:  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1870599

Notice over several moves including 20...Qb6 Black shifted his struggle for control of the center form sometimes occupying the center with his pawns and pieces to controlling the center with the power of his pawns and pieces.  With the move 20...Q at d4 to Q to b6, Black vacates the center but leaves the power of the Q exercising its strong influence over the squares d4 and e3.  I will only mention the White N on the square e3 that is pinned.  This is how in modern day GM chess the ever shifting  theory for control of the center transforms from Classical to Hypermodern.  It can be compared to the complexity of when to execute a pawn break.  In some positions there is a great danger of either being too early or too late in executing the pawn break.

Take a look at the previous 5 or 6 moves prior to 20...Qb6 in the So v. Onischuk to see if you can spot the shifting back and forth for control of the center beginning with 14...Nc5.  Please see if you can analyze  the position with the bird's eye view theme of the shifting application of classical to hypermodern control of the center being applied.  The bird's eye view theme will simplify the analysis of the position.  Notice that in combination with the overview of the pawn structure, White's 2 extra pawns are 2 isolanis on  the d and e files that are not very likely to achieve their 2 pawns abreast duo which is their strongest offensive/defensive position.  The White e pawn on e5 is a semi isolani because the move f4 to support the e pawn is very damaging to White's position.  Ex. leaves White N pinned by any piece along the g1-a7 diagonal.

This is an example  of How GMs simplify their analysis of the position.  If you would like amore detailed explanation together with analysis please let  me know.

In the game that Josh  used in the video He begins by playing 1.Nf3.  That  is a hypermodern move.  The N is controlling the central squares d4 and e5 with the power of the N.  Black's move in the video is  1...g6.  Way too slow.  It allows White to establish his center pawn duo by occupying the central squares d4, and e4 an example of Classical center control.  A hypermodern move that makes sense here is 1...c5.  The pawn on c5 controls d4 preventing White from establishing the central pawn duo  anytime soon,  if at all. The Hypermoddern is an alternate theory of controlling the center.  Not magic. At 11:45 of the video states that Black has made no move to occupy the center.  The Hypermodern occupies the center with the power of the pieces and pawns.  With this method you do not create targets on the central squares for your opponent to attack. 

I didn't mean general as in widely excepted. I meant it as in non-specific.

I agree there can be good things about openings that are called "hyper modern" when the center actually can be controlled and struck at. The video I posted was not really one of the openings the OP was asking about in specific but I felt the presenter's attitude in dealing with most play where your opponent refuses to occupy the center was good in general. If I remember right he makes this distinction between controlling central squares which is a "hyper modern" attitude and occupying them and he suggests this general attitude of play, taking it slow, improving your pieces, keeping calm, "I've got all the time in the world" works because the opponent is not occupying the center in the classical sense in these systems, therefore has less space, therefore cannot improve as well for as long. Also calling 1. Nf3 a hypermodern move is a bit much. It's more often just a move order thing.

Take a look at the So v Onischuk game.  What is especially revealing is that So's 2 extra pawns after White's 10,Nd5 are 2 badly crippled double isolani pawns, one White pawn at d2, and one White pawn at e5.  They can be easily attacked the by Black Rs along the half open d file and e file. 

Anyway good post gurjassingh

I don't see how the So game is related to this topic. Both player push in the center right away in that game. Onischuck does let So take his central pawn at some point but that's not the same thing as leaving it at home. When you push it and it's taken you still have space for your pieces. Gambiting central pawns is not hyper-modernism; it's not even classical; it's more romantic chess.

                                                                        __________________________

You either didn't read my post or didn't understand  what I posted. 

In the game that Josh  used in the video He begins by playing 1.Nf3.  That  is a hypermodern move.  The N is controlling the central squares d4 and e5 with the power of the N.  Black's move in the video is  1...g6.  Way too slow.  It allows White to establish his center pawn duo by occupying the central squares d4, and e4 an example of Classical center control.  A hypermodern move that makes sense here is 1...c5.  The pawn on c5 controls d4 preventing White from establishing the central pawn duo  anytime soon,  if at all. The Hypermoddern is an alternate theory of controlling the center.  Not black magic. At 11:45 of the video states that Black has made no move to occupy the center.  The Hypermodern occupies the center with the power of the pieces and pawns.  With this method you do not create targets on the central squares for your opponent to attack. 

The power of the pawns and pieces are overprotecting the central squares in question.  With sufficient overprotection the prophylaxis against White making that move becomes prohibitive.

In other words, the  pawns and pieces  are indirectly occupying the central squares with the power of the pawns and pieces.

I'm not sure what you mean by indirectly occupying. If it is the same concept people usually use the word controlling to mean then I suggested the difference pointed out in the video I posted between occupying and controlling is that when you occupy the center you have more space for your pieces to move. When you simply control the center you are more cramped. This is why the general idea presented in the video works well against systems which do not occupy the center. Is "indirectly occupying" the center something different from controlling it with pieces and pawns that are not occupying it?

                                                                      ___________________

Sorry, but that is only an illusion of advantage in space.  You have a lot to learn about  the concepts of restrain, blockade and execute the enemy.  Your illusory advantage in space is restrained and blockaded by the power of the pawns and pieces.  If you choose to disregard the prophylactic created by all of the over protection moves, you do it at great risk of losing the game.

If you would like to play an OTB game  sometime I would glad to demonstrate it for you.  I don't play online, too many chess engines users.  I live in southwest Florida.  What state do you live in?

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I simply suggested the general idea of taking the given space advantage and slowly improving your pieces as presented by GM Friedel is a good advice for dealing with opponents who don't occupy the center in the opening. If you think that's wrong ok, you're disagreeing with him as well as me but GMs are not always right all the time either. You don't seem to have offered any advice to the OP on the actual question. All you have done is attempt to tear my suggestion down. If watching Friedel's game and adopting his slow attitude towards the game, resisting the urge to rush, and patiently improving your pieces is not a good way to deal with hypermodern openings can you answer the OP's question? What would you suggest?

drop the defensive line , dont  occupy the centre with pawns either draw them onto you , hit back when they overreach , space is tight though you gotta think

                                                                     ______________________________

I will start with my name on chess.com.  You think that it is just a coincidence that my name is "fields of force"  The same fields of force that you don't see or feel when you look at the position.  But they are still there exercising an invisible force against the enemy pawns and pieces.  You ignore those forces at your great peril.

If watching Friedel's game and adopting his slow attitude towards the game, resisting the urge to rush, and patiently improving your pieces is not a good way to deal with hypermodern openings can you answer the OP's question? What would you suggest? 

I posted the answer for the OP with my first response to you.  First playing hypermodern chess certainly does not mean allowing the opponent to establish the central pawn duo at d4 and e4.  The other concept that I disagree with Friedel on is his concept of occupation of the center.  Hypermodern chess does occupy  the center with a different method.  In my opinion the video you selected is a very poor example to answer the  OPs question. The reality is that classical and hypermodern center control are in constant battle back and forth for control of the center during the game.  You have to be aware of it or you will miss the thread of the game.  If you would look at the game So v Onischuk you would see where Onischuk lost the thread of the game on move 20.

The So game is not hyper-modern, both players push central pawns by move 3. Ok, disagree with my answer but provide your own answer then... are you trying to say when the opponent lets go of the center play like So did? If that's the case what is it exactly about his plan that you want to say is the right approach?

You answered none of my objections to your video.  First, that hypermodern center control is the same as classical center  control.  The rule do not  allow the opponent to establish a duo pawn center (pawn at d4 and pawn at e4) or (pawn at d5 and pawn at e5) is the same for hypermodern center control theory.  Also his conception that classical  center control occupies the center,  Hypermodern center control theory also occupies the center with power of the pawns and pieces which is just as effective as physical occupation in accordance with the classical theory.  In fact it has the advantage of  not only occupying the center with forces.  It also does not provide the opponent targets in the form of pawns and pieces.

Once again gurjassingh here is the video of the  game  So v. Onischuk fully commented and analyzed by GM Yassser Seirawan and GM Maurice Ashley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfIGSt3nQg

I'm not trying to answer your objections to my video. I'm trying to ask you if you have anything constructive to add.

How about you try paying attention.  Because I don't think you understand English.  You certainly don't read what I post.  Your posts evidence that you are stuck in a way of thinking that is not valid.  You won't even watch the video that I offered for a differing point of view.  I am responding to you because the OP has not been online since he posted  this topic.

I have posted a response to  his topic at least 3 times.  Another fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

When you decide to have a two way conversation we can communicate.  Otherwise we will just continue posting past each other.

I'm pretty sure I am understanding you but the game you posted isn't hyper modern. The video you posted is an hour long and I'm at work. I will try to watch it later. You seem to be using a different definition of hyper modern and a different definition of what it means to occupy a square than the rest of us and that's leading you not to answer the OP's question well. The question was regarding openings such as the Nimzo Larsen, Owen's Defense, and the Modern where the opponent allows you to get an ideal central pawn duo and attempts to play against it with pieces. You seem to be telling me something like... "no, hyper-modernism is not that," which is fine if you want to have a discussion about what you think hyper-modernism has become or what it should be it's where we're miscommunicating because whether or not you think that's hypermodernism that is what the OP was asking about. I still feel I gave a good, if over-general and rushed, answer but I'm not going to try to argue with your disagreement there. Your point of view is valid, but if you think my answer was so bad I was simply asking if you had an answer since you do keep posting in this thread and that was topic question.

I don't trust people that are not open to an exchange of ideas.