Answers.Body: <p>It seems to me you have the idea spot on already. Traditionally, chess theory was that the best way to control the center was to occupy it. Some players (like Nimzowitsch and others) showed that this was not necessarily true and that there is merit in letting your opponent occupy it while you undermine it from a distance.</p>
  
  <p>I'm not sure if the idea was really novel at the time, but it became popular and as we do whenever we see a pattern we have to name it.</p>
  
  <p>Beyond that I doubt there is much to learn from "hypermodernism" (which is not to say that there is not much to learn from the various rich and deep ideas behind each of the so labelled openings themselves).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-12T05:10:12.990Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-09-12T05:10:12.990Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: firtydank
Answers.Body: <p>Consult John Watson's books on strategy. He writes about this subject from a historical perspective. (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch, and there is also a newer one.)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-08T08:18:32.680Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-01-08T08:18:32.680Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MichalRyszardWojcik
Body: <p>What are the features of hypermodernism? I know that one feature is controlling the center indirectly (f.ex. fianchetto), and letting the opponent control it with pawns. But I am not sure if there are other features. Nimzowitsch, who was the inventer of the hypermodernism style, wrote several new ideas in his book , such as overprotection, prophylaxis, rook on the seventh rank, knight outposts an so on. Are these ideas also considered as a part of the hypermodern style or is there a clear definition on this?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-09-11T19:06:15.433Z
Comments.Text: I'm not going to try and define hypermodenism - to me it was more the younger players of the day pointing out to Tarrasch that he didn't have sole rights on the ideas behind chess strategy. But to say Nimzowitsch invented it is a bit strong - for instance "New Ideas In Chess" by Reti came out 2 years before "My System"
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-09-12T01:04:30.967Z
Comments.Text: Just as a note, I am skeptical about the utility of hypermodernism. We see it in the highest level pretty much only as a black opening, King's Indian Defense, which isn't incredibly popular. There is no hypermodern white opening played in the highest level.
Comments.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-09-25T23:02:16.233Z
Comments.Text: @Bad_Bishop Notice that the English opening does occupy the center right away, and usually has c4 and e4 present in the center. Reti transposes to d4 openings. Benko Gambit? BentLarsen and Polish? These aren't played at the top levels at all.
Comments.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Tags: <terminology>
Title: Hypermodernism definition
ThreadText: # Hypermodernism definition
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-09-11)
  
  What are the features of hypermodernism? I know that one feature is controlling the center indirectly (f.ex. fianchetto), and letting the opponent control it with pawns. But I am not sure if there are other features. Nimzowitsch, who was the inventer of the hypermodernism style, wrote several new ideas in his book , such as overprotection, prophylaxis, rook on the seventh rank, knight outposts an so on. Are these ideas also considered as a part of the hypermodern style or is there a clear definition on this?
  
  **Tags:** terminology
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I'm not going to try and define hypermodenism - to me it was more the younger players of the day pointing out to Tarrasch that he didn't have sole rights on the ideas behind chess strategy. But to say Nimzowitsch invented it is a bit strong - for instance "New Ideas In Chess" by Reti came out 2 years before "My System"  
  > **username_2**: Just as a note, I am skeptical about the utility of hypermodernism. We see it in the highest level pretty much only as a black opening, King's Indian Defense, which isn't incredibly popular. There is no hypermodern white opening played in the highest level.  
  > **username_2**: @Bad_Bishop Notice that the English opening does occupy the center right away, and usually has c4 and e4 present in the center. Reti transposes to d4 openings. Benko Gambit? BentLarsen and Polish? These aren't played at the top levels at all.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2015-09-12. Score: 1
  
  It seems to me you have the idea spot on already. Traditionally, chess theory was that the best way to control the center was to occupy it. Some players (like Nimzowitsch and others) showed that this was not necessarily true and that there is merit in letting your opponent occupy it while you undermine it from a distance.
  
  I'm not sure if the idea was really novel at the time, but it became popular and as we do whenever we see a pattern we have to name it.
  
  Beyond that I doubt there is much to learn from "hypermodernism" (which is not to say that there is not much to learn from the various rich and deep ideas behind each of the so labelled openings themselves).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-01-08. Score: 0
  
  Consult John Watson's books on strategy. He writes about this subject from a historical perspective. (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch, and there is also a newer one.)
  
  
  ---
  
  