Are you a classical or hypermodern player.

There are two MAIN styles of chess in the opening. The classical style, and hypermodernism. The Classical (scientific) way of opening is a traditional way of starting a game. It aims to control the piece with pawns, and have them supported by pieces. The main theorists for this have been Steinitz and Tarrasch. An example of a classical opening might be. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5. 3. e5 Ne7 4. Nf3.

The other main style, hypermodernism, is aimed at controlling the centre with the pieces, and allowing the opposition to gain the centre with the pawns, so that they become targets for the pieces. The main father of this way of thought is Aron Nimzowich, who paved way for many of the openings, and threw aside the traditional principles of the opening set down by Steinitz and Tarrasch. Richard Reti contributed greatly, and the fourth World Champion, Alaxander Alekhine sometimes played with hypermodern styles, particularly "Alekhine's Defense" 1. e4 Nf6. A traditional opening with the mentioned hypermodern guidelines might be a main line from the Nimzo-Indian.

Now that you hoperfully have some understanding of two main chess styles, which style do you prefer?

Openings are what so many of us concentrate on as we want to win early. It's like looking for a magic pill that will transform us into a GM. But I think it's a suckers bet. Sure, you need to know general opening principles so you don't get killed early but against most opponents that will get you into the middle game in decent shape. So I'm not suggesting ignoring the opening but I doubt it's the best way for most of us to spend our study time. My preference is to study tactics daily with a bit of everything else thrown in when time permits.

I tend to prefer the classical openings, particuarly when playing white as I find them very solid and easier to play well. The hypermodern openings seem more subtle to me and I find them harder to play. However, I am a fan of the King's Indian and Gruenfeld defenses when playing black as they lead to interesting positions. Plus I enjoy having some variety in my openings.

Yes SmokeJS, it is correct for beginners to spend more time with tactics and engames, but this is not about LEARNING, because that is how you must learn. This is about comparing the two main styles, that are contrasting each other in those principles, not about learning efficiend lines. Principles over Pre-meditation

what you have shown in the diagram is not the Nimzo indian.

that opening is called the Kings Indian.

It's main idea (for black) is to give white a strong centre, and then try to close the centre and attack on the kingside with f5,f4 and later just try to kill the king.

whites plans are diverse, but many times he tries to crush through the queenside and then attack the black king (that lossened his defenses because of the pawns infront of him moving forward) from the side... but of course that's only in theory :).

te Nimzo indian:

a

a

the Alkehine:

I'm probably much more classical with the white pieces in the opening. White has the first move and better chances of achieving his/her classical objectives. With black I sometimes have to be more obtuse.

i'd consider myself an 'antiHypermodernist' in chess judging by what little i've read on it. Hypermodernism sounds to me like lion taming.

i assume THE chessmaster used classical methods, judging by my 100% losing experinces against it.

the  center domination and the 2 pawns (center) advance, well i wonder why the easy mode comp almost always trys to stop that?

Generally decent engines play conservatively

I'm post modern.

or neo-classical;)

I think it depends on your preferences for sure.. I think i'm a more classical player with white (to keep the advantage) and more hypermodern with black (to try and create some advantage..)