History
Howard Staunton and other mid-19th century players of his era understood many of the ideas that we now consider as hypermodern (Korn & DeFirmian 1990:625). The Hypermodern School of chess theory came to prominence in the 1920s. Leading members were Aron Nimzowitsch, Richard Réti, Ksawery Tartakower, and Gyula Breyer, who all came from central Europe. They felt that chess was becoming boring, slow and unworthwhile. They also believed that chess could not be defined by a simple set of laws or principles, such as those laid out by the German Siegbert Tarrasch.
Their ideas were thus a challenge to the existing orthodoxy popularised by Tarrasch in the 1890s. This orthodoxy was a rather dogmatic distillation of the ideas worked out by the great chess pioneer Wilhelm Steinitz. Steinitz was the first player who in his play demonstrated a mastery of positional chess ideas and the ideas he developed came to be known as the "Classical" or "Modern" school of thought. This school of thought emphasized the importance of "static" advantages such as avoidance of pawn weaknesses, strong outposts for knights, and striving for "good" rather than "bad" bishops in locked pawn positions. This school of thought was in turn a reaction to the earlier swashbuckling style of Adolf Anderssen, Henry Blackburne and others who represented the Romantic school.
In 1922, Richard Réti published Die neuen Ideen im Schachspiel (the English translation, Modern Ideas in Chess, was published in 1923), an examination of the evolution of chess thinking from the time of Paul Morphy through the beginning of the hypermodern school. Tartakower's book Die hypermoderne Schachpartie (The hypermodern chess game) was published in 1924. Nimzowitsch's famous book Mein System (My System) was published in 1925 through to 1927 in five installments. It included elements of Hypermodernism, but was largely a text on positional chess.
Read more about this topic: Hypermodernism (chess)
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are rather of the nature of universals, whereas those of history are singulars.”
—Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)
“No one is ahead of his time, it is only that the particular variety of creating his time is the one that his contemporaries who are also creating their own time refuse to accept.... For a very long time everybody refuses and then almost without a pause almost everybody accepts. In the history of the refused in the arts and literature the rapidity of the change is always startling.”
—Gertrude Stein (1874–1946)
“History, as an entirety, could only exist in the eyes of an observer outside it and outside the world. History only exists, in the final analysis, for God.”
—Albert Camus (1913–1960)