1 edit
Instead of building up a centre with pawns, you hold your pawns back until the time is right, and then you try to destroy your opponents centre. If you succeed, you'll usually have a lot of targets here and everywhere. If not, you're squashed.
So, instead of occupying the centre.. you would attempt to control it and see it as an object of attack. I personally found it quite hard to play hypermodern. Maybe it's because you need some skill to do it.. 🙁
Originally posted by Golubany example of that?
Instead of building up a centre with pawns, you hold your pawns back until the time is right, and then you try to destroy your opponents centre. If you succeed, you'll usually have a lot of targets here and everywhere. If not, you're squashed.
So, instead of occupying the centre.. you would attempt to control it and see it as an object of attack. I personal ...[text shortened]... found it quite hard to play hypermodern. Maybe it's because you need some skill to do it.. 🙁
Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODYDo you mean ECO volumes D and E? I'm not certain that I understand the question.
I've heard different theories about (E & D) openings. Lately, I've been trying to stay away from those, mainly because the board can be memorized to a certain extent if constantly played this way.
Does anyone tend to shy away from E & D, or stay along this road?
I did try to keep my postal games in volumes A and B back in 1998, when those were the only volumes that I owned.
Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODYi do, i like to suprise my opponent and i think the best way is to use an opening they dont know.
I've heard different theories about (E & D) openings. Lately, I've been trying to stay away from those, mainly because the board can be memorized to a certain extent if constantly played this way.
Does anyone tend to shy away from E & D, or stay along this road?