Answers.Body: <p>If you're learning and trying to get better (as opposed to just beat the computer), you will need to be able to play different kinds of positions (open, closed, semi-open, etc.), so I would recommend to try to play by occupying the center if your normal approach is to play in a hypermodern style. You may find that you begin to understand hypermodern principles and play on the flanks better from having to defend against, or otherwise counter, that style of play.</p>
  
  <p>At your level, it's probably easier to play an opening like the King's Indian Attack that are more about setting up your pieces and following a system. When you get better and face steeper (human) competition, you will need to be more flexible and daring, although, for right now, it sounds like you are asking all the right questions!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-12T17:27:47.953Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-12T17:27:47.953Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: rougon
Answers.Body: <p>Hypermodern openings allow for one player (originally Black, but  systems have also been developed for White) to develop fast into a confined space and attack the pawn centre erected by the opponent.  </p>
  
  <p>So there's a key question: what happens if the opponent <em>doesn't</em> create an attackable pawn centre, and adopts a hypermodern system himself? In such a strategically symmetric positions, in the absence of genuinely better play from either side, I would expect that White would in the end tend to dominate, because Black has no strategic threats or counter-play, and White's initial initiative will persist.</p>
  
  <p>So against equal or stronger positional opponents, Black might be better advised to become more proactive against White hypermodern systems (e.g. King's Indian Attack) which are often just the Black systems with an extra tempo. A player with a positional flair might still find the hypermodern mirror match-up attractive as Black though if he has the edge in positional thinking skills, and experience in understanding such configurations of pieces.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-11T11:26:06.983Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-11T11:26:06.983Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Body: <p>I've recently discovered that I really enjoy playing 1... g6 and that it tends to give me better results as black than opening with my d or e pawns.  However, a few times now the computer opponent I play against has opened with something like 1. g3 or 1. Nf3 and proceeded in hypermodern style instead of trying to occupy the center.  I've been playing 1... g6 anyway, but I feel like I don't really know what I'm doing then—I can set up a decently defensive position the same way I would against a classic attack, but I usually end up playing super passively, probably not putting enough pressure on white.</p>
  
  <p>At the level of general principles, what should I look for when playing hypermodern vs. hypermodern?  (Or, as a frame challenge, are there reasons that I should try to occupy the center myself instead?)</p>
  
  <p>If it helps for context, I play what I think is just above beginner level; I can hold my own against the app on my phone when it's set to ELO 1200 (though the app doesn't say if this is calibrated to compare to a FIDE ELO, a USCF ELO or something else).</p>
  
  <p>I am aware of <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/12668/a-consistent-grunfeld-repertoire">this related question</a>.</p>
  
Tags: <strategy><hypermodernism>
Title: What are the general principles for playing hypermodern against hypermodern?
ThreadText: # What are the general principles for playing hypermodern against hypermodern?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-08)
  
  I've recently discovered that I really enjoy playing 1... g6 and that it tends to give me better results as black than opening with my d or e pawns. However, a few times now the computer opponent I play against has opened with something like 1. g3 or 1. Nf3 and proceeded in hypermodern style instead of trying to occupy the center. I've been playing 1... g6 anyway, but I feel like I don't really know what I'm doing then—I can set up a decently defensive position the same way I would against a classic attack, but I usually end up playing super passively, probably not putting enough pressure on white.
  
  At the level of general principles, what should I look for when playing hypermodern vs. hypermodern? (Or, as a frame challenge, are there reasons that I should try to occupy the center myself instead?)
  
  If it helps for context, I play what I think is just above beginner level; I can hold my own against the app on my phone when it's set to ELO 1200 (though the app doesn't say if this is calibrated to compare to a FIDE ELO, a USCF ELO or something else).
  
  I am aware of [this related question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/12668/a-consistent-grunfeld-repertoire).
  
  **Tags:** strategy, hypermodernism
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2018-04-12. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  If you're learning and trying to get better (as opposed to just beat the computer), you will need to be able to play different kinds of positions (open, closed, semi-open, etc.), so I would recommend to try to play by occupying the center if your normal approach is to play in a hypermodern style. You may find that you begin to understand hypermodern principles and play on the flanks better from having to defend against, or otherwise counter, that style of play.
  
  At your level, it's probably easier to play an opening like the King's Indian Attack that are more about setting up your pieces and following a system. When you get better and face steeper (human) competition, you will need to be more flexible and daring, although, for right now, it sounds like you are asking all the right questions!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2018-04-11. Score: 1
  
  Hypermodern openings allow for one player (originally Black, but systems have also been developed for White) to develop fast into a confined space and attack the pawn centre erected by the opponent.
  
  So there's a key question: what happens if the opponent *doesn't* create an attackable pawn centre, and adopts a hypermodern system himself? In such a strategically symmetric positions, in the absence of genuinely better play from either side, I would expect that White would in the end tend to dominate, because Black has no strategic threats or counter-play, and White's initial initiative will persist.
  
  So against equal or stronger positional opponents, Black might be better advised to become more proactive against White hypermodern systems (e.g. King's Indian Attack) which are often just the Black systems with an extra tempo. A player with a positional flair might still find the hypermodern mirror match-up attractive as Black though if he has the edge in positional thinking skills, and experience in understanding such configurations of pieces.
  
  
  ---
  
  