It's well understood that the purpose of the fianchetto bishop is to put pressure on the center by controlling rather than occupying the central squares (hypermodern opening theory).

However, the kind of control seems to vary by opening considerations - sometimes control seems to mean attacking central squares that the opponent plans to control, and sometimes control seems to mean protecting your own claim to the center.

If we are playing out of book and sheerly according to opening principles, then:

1) In general, is the fianchettoed bishop supposed to serve its center control function by attacking or protecting the center?

2) What principle(s) govern which bishop should be fianchettoed, or preferred?

3) What considerations, if any, would prompt interest for fianchettoing both bishops?

Thanks!

1) The fianchettoed bishop is more to improve its attacking range rather than defensive, if we assume the pawns are endeavoured to be put on the same squares as the fianchettoed bishop, then the pawns usually do a good enough job in conjunction with the knights.

2) Usually you'll see the kingside fianchetto more because it helps to protect the king.

3) If the opposing player fianchetto's their queens bishop, then usually it is a good idea to counter fianchetto on the kingside. Sometimes if the opponent has spent the time to play moves like h3 or h6, then your bishop is sometimes better on b7 or b2.

Fianchetto structures on the kingside where the king is castled can be extremely defensive.

But moving the bishop away from the king side fianchetto can be deadly.

In the 1830s to 1850s, Howard Staunton favored fianchettoed bishops.  He understood that bishops could become one-dimensional pieces and fianchetto structures expanded the mobility of the bishop both defensively and offensively.  However, the holes and closed positions in the pawn formation were exploitable weaknesses that caused Paul Morphy and Wilhelm Steinitz and others to shun them. Since World Champions dictate what's in and out, fianchettos fell out of favor as did a lot of Staunton's ideas. The Hypermoderns revived a lot of these ideas.  And, some players like Botvinnik, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov revived the fianchetto... 

The basic principle of which bishop to fianchetto depends on which side you wish to attack.  A Kingside attack usually has a queen bishop fianchetto while the king's bishop fianchetto occurs when conducting a Queenside attack.  The idea is to let the opposition occupy the center and then use those pieces as points to direct an attack.  So, you could fianchetto both king and queen side but for tactical reasons it might be better to delay the second fianchetto.

Mike

Yep, that's the first step of counterplay against the fianchetto, to play a manoevre like Qd2+Bh6. Once the kingside bishop is gone, the squares around the king will be weak, although the centre should still remain relatively solid as the pawns were (assumingly) on the same colour as the kingside bishop.

So I see the principle that when you fianchettoe a bishop, you should try to keep it and prevent it from being traded.

Is that true?

Here's a basic thing you should be aware of. In the kings Indian Defense blacks play is virtually ALAWAYS on the king side.  True enough that the Fianchettoed KB bears down on the queen side, but Black is almost never interested in persuing play on the the Q side.  Also, in the Queens Indian defense black usually doesn't get any much in the way of king side attacks.  I think you are simply over generalizing and not taking into account how these common openings are acutally used, both at the highest level and at the amateur level. 

The fianchettoed bishop supporting a center pawn has restricted range but can often restrain the opponent's pawn break.

Well like always it depends on the position, but the dragon always seems to be the easiest way to explain these concepts.

Is that the Sicilian dragon, or the variation which arises from any KID defence?

Yet, that was helpful, because I realised that was exactly what I did against one of my opponents!

Sicilian Dragon

Thanks mate! T'was helpful!

The fianchetto had been revived along time before either Karpov, Kasparov or Fischer even came into the world.

Yup, Réti was quite well known for playing a double fianchetto, although I believe he was not especially successful with it.

I disagree. 

The strategic idea behind the fianchetto according to Staunton, Tartakower, Reti, and Nimzowitz in their writings is as I outlined above.  You might want to review some of the games by Botvinnik, Petrosian, Spasky, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov regarding the KID and QID attacks and bishop fianchetoes in Candidate Games and World Championship Games --- that's what they wrote in their analyses and that's the strategy they tried to play against Master level players. 

As for your statement regarding the KID you might want to see the Gruenfeld (that's how Fischer spelled it) variaton against Byrne (1956) and against Botvinnik (1962) or Kasparov's games against Karpov in their Grunfeld (that's how Kasparov spelled it) games in the 1986 WCC.  As for your QID statements, the Classic Variation demonstrates this principle to no end as seen in Beliavsky v Spasky 1980.  

But, there are times for TACTICAL reasons that strategy might be DELAYED but eventually it gets played.   AND that's what White tries to avoid with anti-KID and anti-QID lines; however, the fundamental strategic principle remains the same because if BLACK can execute the strategy then BLACK usually wins unless White can throw in enough tactics to weaken Black's position (an instructive game is Capablanca v Tartakower New York 1924 where White wins against Black's fianchettoed bishop.)

Mike

As I noted, Staunton was playing these positions in the 1830-1850s long before Botvinnik, Fischer, etc.  But, the fiancheto lost popularity among chess players at all levels due to the practical play of Morphy and the teachings of Steinitz and Tarrasch. 

In the 1920s, Tartakower, Nimzowitz and Reti founded the Hypermodern Movement which gained interest among some Masters with the publication of Modern Ideas in Chess in 1922 by Reti, of My System by Nimzowitz and of Hypermodern Chess by Tatakower in 1924 (Sorry, I only read these in their English Translations).  The ideas  while played in some over the board games remained novelties until the NY Tournament of 1924 when these ideas were tested and Reti beat Capablanca.  Alechin (that's how Capablanca spelled it) gave extensive analyses of all the games in his Book of the NY Tournament 1924 which was highly recommended by Master players of the time including Capablanca (though his endorsement might have represented the First edition.  In later revisions, Alekhine made some interesting side comments about the great Cuban player whom Alechin was to play later for the World Championship and the tournament in general.  In his papers for the revised editons of this Book published AFTER Capablanca lost the title, the tone is different.  If you can get the first edition read that then compare it to subsequent comments made by Alekhine after he became the champ--- it's interesting to read Alekhine's before and after comments...) 

Anyway, it wasn't until Botvinnik's success and the rise of the Russian school that fianchettoed positions became popular again among chess players at all levels. 

Mike

Well Mike, what can I say, other than you are wrong. You've set up a strawman so that you can knock it down.  I didn't say most of what you're inferring that I did.  One of the basic tenents of "attacking chess" is that you expand in the direction of your pawn chainl  KID that pawn chain points at the king side.  I'm not saying nor did I ever say that the black KB is not striking at or towards the king side, but that the attack is directed, almost universally at the king side.  In fact there are countless games, many fischer one included that involve posting that KB at k5 or q6 in order to strike directly at the king side. 

If you wan to puff out your chess by naming, while not actually referencing any real sources, go right ahead.  I too have been playing a long time and to tell beginners that the point of KB in the KID is to strike at the queen side is stupid and wrong.  Ever notice that black almost always ends up with a pawn on his own k4 in the kid or kia? duh. 

Gruenfeld is a different matter. But, I never said a word about the gruenfeld.  And, to quote Staunton is just strange.  When did you start playing in 1840's?

Btw, I hope your playing strength is greater than the 1200 listed on your profile...maybe not.  I never claimed to be a chess god or anything, but I've broken the expert barrier (2000) as a uscf player in my day and have take a few master scalps a long the way.  I'm not a GM, but I know what the hell I'm talking about. 

How often does that "queenside stratedgy" get delayed when white has been mated on the king side?  

Sorry, I don't think I am wrong.

And, it's not so strange to look to the games of the old masters. Plumbing Staunton for ideas dates back to when Bobby Fischer was dominating American Chess in the 1950s to 1970s on his way to the world championship. One of his sources for secret weapons was Staunton's Handbook and Praxis--- there was an article about it in Chess Life in the 1970s-1980s and comments by Larry Evans and Koltanowski (?). Taimanov likewise borrowed and revived Staunton's ideas on his way to the Candidates Matches. That's part of the reason Fischer rated Staunton one of the great masters in chess (Bobby Fischer, "The Ten Greatest Masters in History", Chessworld, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1964), pp. 56-61..) according to GM Evans.

Anyway drudging up Staunton's ideas was the only way for me to beat CM9000 (the same chess engine that beat a US Champ GM Christensen) because of the wealth of ideas that Staunton introduced.

Besides for all your skill, MOST chess players are acquainted with at least some familiarity with chess books like My System, Chess Praxis, Hypermodern Chess, etc which you evidently are not. A shame because if you were, you'd find out how wrong you are.  And if you think I'm wrong,all I'm doing is referencing what the Chess Masters themselves wrote and played. If you don't like it then argue with them or their contemporaries. But, if you'd like a reading list for where these ideas on the openings come then you can start with Horowitz's Chess Openings: Theory and Practice and n Korn's Modern Chess Openings 13. I haven't played much chess in over thirty years except against chess engines and that's been for fun. And I'm deliberately trying to avoid specific chess openings and their variations because Chessguava asked for general principles on which bishop to fianchetto.

BTW, I'm new on this board so everyone starts out with the USCF rating of 1200.

I've played a long time--- mostly at places like Washington Square in New York--- and my use of Opening terms reflects those popular in the 1970-1980s when I played there. Back then, the Gruenfeld or Grunfeld was a variation of the KID proper.

If you'd like to review a KID game at this link:

Chess openings: King's Indian Defense (E60)

After analyzing it, you'll find that the games followed the general principles outlined by Staunton when tactics allowed especially the one by R. Byrne-Fischer...

Mike

Hey Mike, I've probably got 75 books in my chess library, and I've read them all.  Most of them several times over the years...not always as serious study, somtimes as references other times just to look at the diagrams and follow along as deeply as I can without a board.  You make a lot of incorrect assumptions.  I've read My System.  I understand the ELEMENTARY POINT that you insist on restating.  I'm not arguing your basic premise that fiachetto B's strike at the long diaginol.  Once again you continuie to set up strawmen so that you can knock them down as if you were arguing with me when in fact you're aruguing with your own strawman argument. 

My comment regarding Staunton was meant to be glib in light of your previous comment disregardging the obvious truth that in the KID white, historically speaking NOT specifically speaking, gets most of his play on the queen side whereas black gets most of his play on the KING side. I really don't understand why you are being stubborn about this.  I'm aware that there of lots of examples where this is not true.  Chess is not a simple game. However my point is that for you to infer that beginners  should look for queenside play in the KID is wrong headed.  Are there exceptions? Sure there are.  Perhaps you'd do well do review the title of this thread and you can think of king side play in the KID for black as  "finchetto subtleties".   But seriously if you don't get the basic premise that, again generally speaking, in the KID black usually plays for king side expansion and white for queen side expansion, then you're just playing a different game than I am. So be it.  Perhaps we should play and you can show me how you're going beat me up on the queenside with a KID.  I'm really not interested in researching yor books.  If you'd like to reference me to some games on chessgames.com that would be fine.

eg: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008397

or:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044711