How would you define the current style or postmodern chess?

As we have moved well beyond the hypermodern era, I think that with Kasparov's retirement we enter the postmodern era. I would say it was really solidified when we got our first world champion who grew up with modern chess engines an the internet. The computer era seems to have spawned a style which focuses almost entirely on making the fewest mistakes rather than finding creative plans to win.

Do you agree? I can't imagine how boring Fischer would find modern chess. Personally I like it. I think that it is actually very exciting watching players like carlsen play so few inaccuracies. How would you define the current age? Would you even call it postmodern? And where is there left to go? I read that we will enter an era where there will be no new opening variations 

Trying to be accurate instead of creative?

I think you're describing the transition from 19th to 20th century chess, an era ushered in by Steinitz.

"... except for a brief period a few years back, Carlsen as an elite player has generally avoided contesting sharp and theory-laden opening variations. For the most part, even as White, he plays modest positions which offer little or no objective advantage, but can still create difficult problems. Because of his superior understanding, and/or the fact that he is more familiar with the positions than his opponents, he is able to outplay them (with record-shattering results).

Recently, perhaps in subconscious imitation of the World Champion, or more likely in response to practical limits, we are beginning to see more opening play like Carlsen's. ..." - IM John Watson (2014)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-110-repertoires-in-the-age-of-carlsen

So do you feel this proves or refutes my point?

Solid but creative 

Spongy's quote was more about openings, but if the champion sets the style, maybe that's why players tend to be opening obsessed after 15+ years of Kasparov at the top.

These days pros are walking encyclopedias of opening theory... but also they're very willing to play non-theoretical, and boring  openings that don't even pretend to try for an advantage, and then grind out a win later in the game.

As for style like 19th centry style, we're still just an extension of Steintiz's scientific approach. But we've brought it to the point where children are trained from a young age to learn all aspects of play. In that sense modern pros are universal, they have no style. Neither do they have dogma like the early 20th century masters. If it works, and it's practical, then it's put to use.

Beginners tend to think e.g. Tal won with attacks and Karpov won with endgames. No. Karpov would obliterate you with a sacrificial kingside attack if you allowed it. Tal would trade all the pieces off into a technically won endgame if you allowed it.

I think it depends on whether the time controls speed up.    If they do, then style is secondary.   And playing good moves so that you're not the last player to blunder will be the way forward in oreder to have the best sporting result. 

Pieohpah321 wrote:

"... So do you feel this proves or refutes my point?"

I just thought that the quote might be of interest.

No style is a style. But you raise an interesting yet redundant point. In our current age, I call it the information age, some people say it's postmodern, universality is present in all things. Bruce Lee brought it to the art and philosophy of fighting and now we have MMA. NBA players can do it all. Gone are the big men that play in the post, today's big men can run, just as PGs can score like crazy. 

But Chess is unique in how old it is. And I'm not only speaking of the world champs style, although that's obviously influential. How will this era be viewed historically? Players are better informed than ever. But it seems only Carlsen really plays like a computer, or rather plays most like one. We see often computer analysis that will tell us a move was inaccurate in favor of a line that no one in their right mind would play... Is the future for us to become more like machines, or will we improve the machines to think more like us?

Another question... Do we need a rules change? Fischer thought so. Should only wins and losses count?

Well, of course we can't know how the future will characterize the present. It would be interesting to know... but guesses are often wrong.

Carlsen may be accurate, but his approach is the opposite of a computer. He plays practical chess.

As for engine moves that are mathematically best but impractical, reasonable players know to ignore those suggestions. Even me, and I'm not even a titled player. so pros must know this even better.

But even if we were to worship engine lines, we can't play like them, because the way we find moves is fundamentally different.

---

Only counting wins and losses for a world championship match might be fine. But the game itself has a large drawing margin, so getting rid of draws completely (e.g. counting them as non-games and requiring another game to be played) would be silly.

I understand that he doesn't play all of the tactical engine lines. I only started playing and using engines in January of this year, and even I see where sometimes the computer suggests a line that is just so crazy that no one would ever play it.

But what Carlsen does do is play lines that are considered safe or slightly better by the engine. I was pointing out how much engine analysis has shaped the game. Players are able to look over games and see where there were opportunities for tactics, and they make sure to prevent those next time. It has led to more and more boring play, I think.

I would be appalled at your post if it wasn't practically satirical, as if every type of moron that exists on Chess.com was rolled up into one member who shitposts constantly about how he's going to be a 3500 player, Magnus Carlsen is a patzer, time controls above 5/0 are dead, computers are the future of chess and opening theory is king.