What are the general principles for playing hypermodern against hypermodern? (Or should I not?)

Why would answers to a question like this be more opinion-based than, say, a question about opening principles in general? It's not like they're asking what the best line is.

A question about general opening principles would presumably be on-topic, yet even there, opinions differ - the hypermodern strategy itself violates the traditional principles in some ways.

As I mentioned in a reply to a comment on the question, if there are truly no special principles that apply when facing a hypermodern with a hypermodern, that would be an answer to the question.


I don't think the question is too opinion-based.

The closing note says

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.

There are clearly facts that could be brought to bear on this question; for example, the frequency with which 1...g6 is used in response to 1.g3 in master play. References can be given, such as what authors of opening books say about these lines. There's room for disagreement, of course, but we are talking about informed opinion, not just random people saying "I like it/don't like it".

I sometimes feel that people are too afraid of "opinion" on this site. Taken too far, pretty much everything in chess other than rules, definitions, and tactical or endgame puzzles is opinion-based to some extent. :-)


Playing chess openings requires judgement. And for an individual faced with finite time available for study there is a second level of judgement required. To call this “opinion”, and then block it, is to deny the nature of chess as a pursuit.
The question about how to play a hypermodern against another is a particularly intriguing one which had never occurred to me, and I am really looking forward to reading the answer.
In determining whether a question is “opinion-based”, I recommend the following thought experiment, which is in the spirit of the Q&A nature of stackexchange. Can one imagine that a teacher like Silman would be able to respond coherently and informatively? In this case, I think the answer is definitely “yes”

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .