Should Players Below 1500 Play Hypermodern Openings?

I play the Sicilian a lot against 1.e4, and I want to play the dragon when I do this. One of the problems is that most people don't play 3. exd4, and as a result, I never get into a position I like. I also don't feel secure with a fianchettoed bishop near my king because the dark squares around my king are so weak and I often don't know what to do when my opponent castles kingside, away from the bishop's line of fire. Thus, I want to know if I should continue playing such openings or if I should find a more open reply to 1. e4 (what could that be?). Against 1.d4, I've been playing the Nimzo-Indian lately with mixed success.

I think any player, especially those of us with less than spectacular skills as of yet, should stick to what they know and experiment when they feel comfortable. If a position, especially one as dramatic as the Sicilian can be, proves too much, switch to something more passive.

All my opening theory comes from experimentation and I've somehow figured out the majority of the main variations of the King's Indian due to that experimenting. So, in the end, I believe the best possible advice I can give you is getting down the basic chess principles and most importantly brush up on theory.

However, if you are looking for an open line against the dreaded and overplayed e4, try a slightly less dramatic play of the c7 pawn to c6 readying d5 with some flexibility. Don't worry about naming or finding out the name of this opening yet, if you don't already know. Just concentrate on finding out the best line yourself. That will help you become the most familiar with it as you are spotting things yourself. From there, look it up.

In my ideal world, all beginners should play the Italian game, boring variation until they learn to stop dropping pieces. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 followed by h3/h6 and castling and absolute boredom. The reason is that this opening demonstrates efficient, simple, logical development, gives an open game to practice tactics, and has very simple and obvious plans to follow (d4 for white/d5 for black.)

Of course, everyone thinks it's boring, and you aren't likely to find an opponent who'll cooperate in getting to this position. So, you just have to play openings that are preferably very open. If you're a beginner, chances are you still hang pieces (and have pieces hung to you), and positional play is still Greek to you (or Basque, or Cantonese. No linguistic discrimination here.) So hypermodern openings would definitely not be good, as those are slow and very positional stuff.

Phylar's right in recommending the basic chess principles: What good is the book if you don't know it and your opponent doesn't play it? (Like the Sicilian you want.) Theory however is not necessary, not yet at least, unless you're playing razor-sharp lines or gambits (which you shouldn't be.) You can make it really far without theory, as long as your tactical foundation is good, and you don't easily create any positional weaknesses.

Learn to stop hanging pieces. Then pick a gambit to study for tactics practice. Only when you understand how to stop creating positional weaknesses (?) then you could try learning a positional opening like the French or Caro-Kann, or Pirc or Modern.

You can win with anything. Stronger players usually advise the open games or at least to contest the center classically because it's just easier to play when you have about equal space. Hypermodern stuff usually consists of space disadvantages, weird knight manoeuvres, odd rules about when it's ok to caste, awkward pawn moves and none of these things are a requirement to win at our level. There are also a lot of themes in classical play that are required to know to play hypermodern stuff. 

For example in the Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 e5 4. Ngf3 is supposed to be an even game. But the thing to note is that it's a classical open game and if Black isn't used to playing this way he may not be able to appreciate his equality. 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 reaches the same pawn structure but the light-squaerd bishop and knight are in different places than in the Caro-Kann leading to different ideas. 

I don't think it really matters what you play as long as you watch or play classical games as well. 

Here's the thing. I'm horrible at positional chess. Are positional openings bad, then? I think I might (might) like some of the other openings more (just because they look better to me, not because I know anything about them). I don't like playing e5 against e4 because that's what all e4 players want. I don't know what I should do with my openings. Should I continue playing an overly aggressive opening when my opponents don't cooperate whose positions I don't particularly love, or should I change my openings just to experiment and be safer?

The Sicilian is probably black's best reply against e4. Many Sicilian players are somehow frustrated when white plays anti-Sicilian or closed Sicilian. The only way to battle the anti-Sicilian system is to study them. Fighting the Anti-Sicilians by Richard Palliser is a good book.

...More often than not, that's not the case. I hardly ever see 1...e5 being played, and when I do I'm usually a little stunned. You see players debating the Sicilian as white, discussing the Advance French (bleah), the Advance Caro-Kann and KIAs. Do you really see people who are intensely focused on the Ruy Lopez, the Scotch or the Italian? e4 e5 openings aren't that interesting by comparison, even though they're the best to learn chess from.

dpnorman, I just went through one of your games, and highly recommend AGAINST positional or hypermodern openings. If you're bad at cycling, would you join the Tour de France? Play more open games (e4 e5! Nimzo is fine against d4) and practise those while slowly (subconsciously) learning about positional chess from those games. That, and apply basic principles whenever you're out of book (frankly, having a "book" is not important.)

As black: double KP games, double QP games or the Nimzo against d4.

As white: Play 1. e4. Play the Open Sicilian if black chooses ...c5. If black tries some closed positional games, just think "he can't possibly know more about this stuff than me" and play sound chess.

There's nothing special about 1.e4 e5, I don't win when I play it, and at my level, yes, I do find that it's what all e4 players want to play. I hate defending Ruy Lopez (although I know the Scotch pretty well since I used to play it, so I know some things to beat a player of my level) and I feel e5 is just a book move that isn't interesting and doesn't win. I think there's a reason why good players don't play e5. I do wish to be proven wrong, however, as I don't know much about chess in general.

I don't know. 1...e5 just seems to allow white to play what he wants, in my opinion.

lol.

Well, the best players in the world today continue to play 1...e5 vs 1.e4 so...

And IIRC in this years candidates tournament, I believe the strongest tournament to date, there were more Ruys than Sicilicans.  I may have miscounted and there were an equal amount, but I think there was 1 more Ruy than Sicilian.

The reason top-flight professionals don't play 1...e5 so often is that the resulting positions have fewer imbalances that could swing the game either way, thus are drawish. The deep theory they study leads to this conclusion, and if they seriously play for wins, imbalance-filled goodies like the Sicilian or subtle QP openings are better. Of course, they still play e4 e5 too, just that those games usually aren't so dramatic nor common.

Good amateurs don't play e4 e5 because it has a reputation as a beginner's opening, or that it's not popular at the top thus it's not as good. Both false accusations, but that's what happens. It's a good opening in its own right, just less popular.

If you hate the Ruy Lopez, you could look at Bird's 3...Nd4 line (guaranteed to confuse!) which is still an open game and instructive, especially with tactics against white's adventurous bishop. You can still apply normal principles to it, but the positions are much less cramped for black than the usual lines.

A quick search on chessgames.com reveals that the move 3...Nd4 against the Ruy Lopez is a win for white 48% of the time, much more than any of the main lines for black. I'm sorry for being kind of difficult about this but that doesn't really appeal to me...

Good amateurs play 1...e5, of course.

I think the reason you see a lot of 1...c5 is new players like the dragon.  You set your pieces up in a predictable way each time and feel like you've navigated an opening, yay.

Of course the reality is the OP where even when things go your way you have no idea what to do with the middle game.

Very true for me specifically...

...absolutely right there, waffllemaster.

Sorry if I seem very pushy today with all the posts, but don't trust databases to give you statistics. I found out that line from this instructive blog, and he scored 57% as black with it just by understanding the ideas, positions and lines behind it. If white is properly booked up (I'm not sure who would intensively study this...) he can maintain a slight advantage as with most openings, but nobody below master level is going to know how to deal with this optimally over the board. Plus, it stops white from playing whatever lengthy mainlines he might have prepared and forces him to just play chess.

Kramnik said he was on a quest to make the top players quit 1.e4 lol. Anyway I think you should try to watch some old master games with 1.e4 e5 and try to learn more about them that way. Here's a huge collection:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1006294

No, no, don't worry about being pushy; if anything, it is I who has been rejecting a lot of what you've said on the basis of nothing whatsoever. I will have to look into good lines against the Ruy Lopez. But the point remains the same: having seen my game with it, I should not be playing the Sicilian at my level.

If you are comfortable with the middlegame positions that the hypermodern openings give you, then why not? In an opening, you need to control the center, develop your pieces and castle. You can reach this goal with  classical, or hypermodern openings as well. 

Well... ok.

1.
Stats for moves can be misleading for many different reasons.  Consider 3...d4 is a sideline for sure.  In fact I've never seen a game with a modern GM play this move.  I'm sure a few are out there... but it's obviously not a strong move.

2.
What appeals to you about an opening shouldn't be stats or popularity.  It should be the middle game.  The purpose of the opening is to reach a middle game where you understand the main ideas and are comfortable with those themes.  e.g. in a Sicilian you may accept a backward pawn and not as much development, but in the middle game you have queenside ideas and/or the d5 break.

3. 
Many new players jump from opening to opening.  To be comfortable with your opening (that is, the middle game plans and structure) you should study the middle game first.  I say just play classically (and strongly) with 1...e5.  But if you want to play the Sicilian, fine.  But don't waste time memorizing variations.  Study the opening in respect to the middle game.  Go over GM games, how do they conduct the middle game?  Notice a lot of queenside action?  Commonly seen pawn breaks on b5, d5 or f5?  How do they follow up?  This is what will get you results (and make you a better player too).  That and endgame study :p

Anyway, in the end you may not know what the book move is after white's deviation on move 7.  But if you understand the idea behind the opening, then you will not feel lost, and you can find a reasonable move (and beat the crap out of your peers who make posts like this where they're "uncomfortable" and "don't know what to do" when you didn't play the book move against them).

By the way guys, I haven't expressed this yet, but I thank you all for your advice. I really appreciate it, Remellion especially, since I have been having a lot of chess difficulties lately.