Why the hypermodern school isn't popular?

Seriously, what is your point here. Masters are suppose to learn difficult ideas, and in them the hypermodern idea, because it's just a playing style. If Reti played it, and nimzowitch, and they (at least reti) got very good results with it, i bet there are players now that can match this style and can play it, statisticly it's suppose to be like that, and if players want to win, why can't they show a new style, at least sometimes, making a surprise for the opponet, and have a very good play?

@ifoody

Thank you for your honest and candid answers. And I hope that this thread has helped you in some way to become a more knowledgeable and stronger player.

Even today I can remember first reading Aaron Nimzowitsch's, "My System". It was a complete revelation. It was like a very bright light was lit in my chess mind and Everything about chess made crystal clear sense. Suddenly I knew that Chess is Siege Warfare on a chessboard. The same type of warfare that human beings , throughout part of our history, engaged in to gain wealth and power for kingdoms. Mr. Nimzowitsch shines a flood light on what is really going on at the chessboard by highlighting the methods of Siege Warfare on the chessboard. The 3 methods that he examines in detail forthe reader are ( RESTRAIN, BLOCKADE, AND EXECUTE THE ENEMY.) The best testament to this book, My System, is the fact that every titled IM and GM in the world, from the past to today's top players have read and studied this book. But, enough about Hypermodern Theory.

I know a very funny true story about Mr. Nimzowitsch and Emmanuel Lasker. They were paired against each other in a very strong tournament somewhere in Europe. In prior negotiations and at the insistence of Mr. Nimzowitsch, Mr. Lasker had agreed not to smoke his famous cigars at the chessboard. Mr. Lasker agreed to the terms. Mr. Nimzowitsch was very high strung. As scheduled their game began. After a few moves into the game Mr. Lasker reached into his jacket and pulled out a box of matches and very slowly and deliberately set it down on the edge of the chessboard. A few moves later Mr. Lasker reached into his jacket and very slowly and deliberately set a cigar on the chessboard next to the box of matches. At that moment Mr. Nimzowitsch shot up from the table and hailed the tournament director. He exclaimed to the TD, "Mr. Lasker is smoking!!". The TD made his way to the chessboard and examined the situation. He then turned to Mr. Nimzowitsch and stated that Mr. Lasker is not smoking. To which Mr. Nimzowitsch loudly and emphatically replied, "Yes, but he is THREATENING TO SMOKE." This is a tru story.

2mooroo wrote:

I didn't forget, I stated it was flexible waiting move.  The e pawn is one of the many pieces black procrastinates commiting.You stand nearly alone in your Bb5 idea.  I don't play that and there's hardly any games in my database with it.  Black is very flexible and is not dependent on any single piece.  3.Bb5+ with the idea of setting up a Maroczy Bind with no bad bishop is something that deserves some respect, although I still don't think it yields anything incredible for white.I'm looking for a defense against 1.d4 not 1.e4.  Also, I generally don't play passive openings like the Caro Kann.

______________________

Ok, your terminology is on the fringe of describing the purpose of the move 5...a6, but given that this has been an ongoing discussion we will agree to fit your explanation of the move into the context of the whole discussion.

Regarding your second point about about Bb5+, the 2 variations that begin with this move are the Moscow Variation and the Rossolimo Variation. I won't go into the details. Maybe later.

I understand your reluctance to play passive openings. Nevertheless 1...c6 is a good response to 1.e4 or 1.d4.

Are you aware of how condescending you sound?

Actually, my point is the exact opposite thing. Yes, the hypermodern school is harder to learn, but when you are in the master level, it's just another style of play, and there is not an actual reason for almost *no GM* to play it.

2mooroo wrote:

Yaroslavl wrote:

Ok, your terminology is on the fringe of describing the purpose of the move 5...a6, but given that this has been an ongoing discussion we will agree to fit your explanation of the move into the context of the whole discussion.

Are you aware of how condescending you sound?

_____________________

Sorry, it wasn't my intent. This game and the type of work I do makes me very exacting in words and numbers. I need to guard my wording and consider others feelings when I speak or write.

By the same token, you have had what seems an argumentative tone in your responses to my posts. I realize that because of your rating you are entitled to feel like you know what you are talking about. And, I respect that. I would appreciate being treated with respect also. My rating FIDE/USCF is almost 600 points higher.

Once again, I apologize that my words offended you. I will be more vigilant and considerate of your feelings in the future.

In a lot of "hypermodern positions" you can sometimes get an equal game by playing a classical pawn break like d5 or e5. But some players get so wrapped up in fianchettoing and not putting pawns in the center that they sit around with the same position for the whole game while the opponent just hacks away at their king.

There are even situations in which you can throw away the advantage and simply aim for classical positions. You could play the White side of the KID and simply refuse to play d5. Black will have to grab on d4 and then he'll probably need to aim for d5 and b5. But if all Black knows is how to play when the center closes the game may not go so well. 

So I think it's better to just play all kinds of positions and avoid the argument altogether.

The difference is that I actually have a point.  I made myself clear that there is a consensus that any Bb5 idea in the Najdorf is a weak strategy and I explained why.  Instead of addressing this you give "your terminology is on the fringe of describing the purpose of the move 5...a6". 

With this statement you attempt to discredit my argument yet offer no explanation.  And on top of that you do in it in the sly manner of a politician.  

"we will agree to fit your explanation of the move into the context of the whole discussion"
Who is we?  Are you speaking for someone other than yourself here?  This is just one of the tricks you employ in pretending your rationale for a6 is superior to mine. 

That entire sentence,
"Ok, your terminology is on the fringe of describing the purpose of the move 5...a6, but given that this has been an ongoing discussion we will agree to fit your explanation of the move into the context of the whole discussion."

can be translated into plain english, devoid of jargon, as

"Your argument is wrong but maybe your post doesn't deduct value from the thread."

Why don't you explain for us why the chesstempo database shows after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd 4.Nxd Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6,

6.Bb5 has only been played in 38 times out of roughly 26,000 master level games that have reached that position if it's such a concern for black?

If you want to fixate on numerical ratings then feel free.  I certainly don't.

Sometimes its really becomes difficult 2 provide activity to pieces....more importantly if you give up centre early one should also know how to counter attack frm flank pawns n break d centre. ....c5.....f6 break in French defense. ...even though french is not hypermordern opening but idea is more or less same ....even in KID c5 n e5 break

c5 in the KID is more of a benoni, not really a true KID spirit. the KID normally involves flank pawn breaks like f5

2mooroo wrote

"Your argument is wrong but maybe your post doesn't deduct value from the thread."

__________________

That is your translation of what I wrote. I would rewrite as follows: I would agree with you, if you were right!

____________________

Yaroslavl wrote

Unless White plays 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bb5+. 5.Bb5 is designed to exchange the Black N if Black plays 5...Nd7 or the Black LSB if Black plays 5...Bd7. Both Black pieces are critical to controlling the center especially the thematic square central square d5.

______________________

2mooroo wrote

Why don't you explain for us why the chesstempo database shows after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd 4.Nxd Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6,

6.Bb5 has only been played in 38 times out of roughly 26,000 master level games that have reached that position if it's such a concern for black?

_______________________

You will notice that I am writing about the move sequence: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bb5+ (Moscow Variation) and 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (Rossolimo Variation)

You, on the other hand, are writing about: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bb5

That is a completely different line.

The lines I wrote about, the Moscow Variation has been played 10,922; and the Rossolimo Variation has been played 15,326, on Chesstempo.

What is hypermodern? Is it controlling the center indirectly or through long diagonals?

chessph wrote:

What is hypermodern? Is it controlling the center indirectly or through long diagonals?

_____________________________________________________

Hypermodern chess is advanced chess practice for strong players. Classical chess is more straightforward and intuitive and therefore it is practiced by those weaker players who are still learning how to spot tactics and mating nets on the chessboard.

In actual chess games Classical and Hypermodern theories are intertwined, mixed together.

The 2 theories are based on the principle of controlling the center.

Classical Theory - Control the center (the squares d4,d5,e4,e5) by occupying it with your pawns and pieces.

Hypermodern Theory - Control the center using the power of your pawns and pieces. With this method you do not create targets in the center for your opponent to attack.

The following is an example of a clash between Classical Theory and Hypermodern Theory. It is found in the Sicilian Defense. The following moves are a typical move sequence of an opening variation known as the Sicilian Najdorf: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6. Set up a board and play the moves. Then the important thing to notice about the position is that while Black's pawns and pieces are controlling key squares in the center none of them is occupying any central square. Black's pawns at d6, and e6 are not occupying any central squares, yet they are controlling key central squares with their power. Black's N at f6 is controlling key squares in the center with its power, yet it is not occupying a central square. Black is applying the Hypermoden theory of chess in this opening variation.

By contrast White is applying the Classical theory of chess. Notice that White's pawn at e4 is occupying the central square e4. And, White's N at d4 is occupying the central square d4.

If you would like to know more, please let me know.

Hypermodern theory is as follows:  Tarrasch is a big dumb meanie who's bad at chess!

lol

Getting to the very issue that made this thread 5 pages long, when most posters actually agree with each other.

xD

So you resurrected a 5-months old thread to tell us you have no clue who introduced 1.e4 Nf6 at the top level.

may be because no grandmaster(except 

Alekhine

) who praticed much of hypermorden achived word champion status