Talk:Hypermodernism (chess)

Bird opening

Would Bird's Opening (1. f2-f4, etc) constitute as a hypermodern opening? ~ Tommy Kronkvist (talk|contribs) 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not clear, it part yes, but not a good example of a Hypermodern opening. ChessCreator (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not count as a hypermodern opening. The hypermodern school is concerned with controlling the center through pieces, not pawns.--108.7.37.57 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. It's concerned with controlling the center, but w/o occupying it w/ pawns that can end up as targets. The Dutch Defence does this (1.d4 f5), so does the Sicilian (1.e4 c5). Bird's can also be considered a "flank opening", and flank openings, e.g. English Opening, are hypermodern. (Dutch & Sicilian & English are discussed in The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996) under schools of chess, The Hypermodern movement.) --IHTS (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pawns are pieces, too... Mitologus (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerated claims

"It [My System] introduced and formalised concepts of the pawn chain, overprotection, undermining, prophylaxis, restraint, rook on the seventh rank, knight outposts, the dynamics of the isolated queen's pawn, and other areas of chess." Really? I suspect that some, if not all, of these concepts had been understood a long time before Nimzowitsch. Indeed, we are actually told in the History section that knight outposts were emphasised by Steinitz. JBritnell (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]