Neither are "better", it depends on what style you are comfortable with.
Hypermoderism vs Classical Openings
Sort:
Dec 13, 2008
0
#3
i have personally tried to "combine" them in a sense (if that is even possible i don't really know). i like to have at least one pawn in the centre (or two or at least one backup pawn protecting) and then use my bishops to attack/protect from a distant (i.e. fianchetto). seems to be working nicely.
Hmn Im playing a game like this at the moment.It all depends on what your opponent does in the opening anad you have to adjust.
Dec 13, 2008
0
#5
since The COlle system is my favorite opening i go for classic aswell.. well baiscally its both. but my complete opening repertoire is classic:
Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit Declined, Colle System, Sicilian, Scandinavian and Scotch.
When it first was developed, hypermodern was stronger because it had the elements of surprise and unfamiliarity going for it. Now that it is well known, not so much. Look at games of grandmasters of today, and you still see more e4 or d4 openings than anything else. I personally use a lot of hypermodern simply because of the level of players I usually face. But I'm working on strengthening my Ruy Lopez.
By the way its hypermodernism ;) not moderism
Dec 13, 2008
0
#8
Honestly, I never consider whether I'm playing "classical" or "hypermodern" in the course of a game. The character I consider is open (tactical, dynamic) vs. closed (quiet, positional). I usually strive for the former, but sometimes the position calls for the latter. Whether it came from a Ruy Lopez or a Grunfeld -- both of which I play extensively -- makes small difference.
You should not combine hypermodern and classical! The way you combine them is your judgement of a certain position; if one player has a an e4 d4 center, he is probably superior, but the one without a center can usually attack it to some extent, creating holes instead of cramping the enemy. Probably the most effective hypermodern opening is the Reti Opening, because if black does manage to get pawns on e5 and d5, it will be hard to take advantage of it because white's bishops , c pawn and knights all pressure it, so black's game isn't really that free! Still, the one with the center usually tends to have at least a slight advantage.
I personally think controlling the center indirectly is the BEST.
ADK
I like classical openings better, I understand why people use hypermodern defenses, rather than trying to fight for the center, and either being slightly behind in developement, or gambiting a pawn to catch up, they just give up the center and develop.
I don't really get why someone would play a hypermodern opening as white, except as a suprise.
Well, usually people play hypermodern openings when they are black, because it is much more double edged and offers them a better chance to win or lose, instead of the usual draw.
if you play a hypermodern opening as white you certainly have a better chance of succeeding, although black should still equalize or get the advantage because he can set up a solid center and white can't launch any early attacks because of this. I prefer the classical especially with white though, because I can get a more comfortable game and cause black more problems.
i find the classification systems for these stupid. You cannot say 1. Nf3 is hypermodern and 1. e4 is not, what is to say white will not play 2. e4 next move?*
say for example, 1. g3 d5 2. d4 - A transposition into the catalan is likely.
So these classifications IMO are stupid, ALL openings contain elements of both and these are more first-move classifications than opening repetoire classifications.
*If the move 2. e4 is prevented, of course, you should not play it...
Nf3 isn't alway a hyper modern opening. it isn't alway's the first move that classifies an opening as hypermodern.
So, there are 2 major types of openings, hypermodern and classical.
One strives to take control of the center with pawns, and the other tries to control the center indirectly.
Are either of the 2 better than the other?