Hypermodern vs Classical

Sort:
OsageBluestem

Which side are you on? I see benefits in both but I am leaning toward classical. It seems more direct and to the point.

OsageBluestem
pfren wrote:

There is no real difference between them. The Classical approach as presented by dr. Tarrasch and a few other theoreticians is factly a misunderstood projection of the Steinitzian chess praxis. Nimzovich simply spotted and reverse-magnified the elements of the Tarrasch dogmas which were in contrast with the  pure classicism.

Several contemporary strong players claim that they are classicists or hypermodernists, but they claim that tongue-in-cheek.


There seems to be a difference. The classical seeks to occupy the center for control. The hypermodern seeks to control it from afar and occupy it later. The games seem to take a drastically different turn depending on the style at play.

Crazychessplaya

Classical as white, hypermodern as black. NEVER fianchetto as white, often fianchetto as black.

Ialmodather

I think it depenp on the player if u played hypromodern ur opponent will control the centre and will have a pressure on u so u have to play aggressive like king king indian defence u leave the centre and try to make an attack against the king but in classical opening it may be symmetrical and may led to a draw I tend to play only e4 in classical opening and c4 and with black Sicilian and benoni and any indian game so if ur more positional u may play classical opening but if u want to play more agreesive and interesting opening choose hypromodern