Having trouble playing against strange opening

Thanks to manik and estragon.  I wanted to bump this up the page just to see if anyone who missed it the first time had any ideas.

I remeber something like
When you're black, let out a cheer when you see 1.g4
When you're white, don't play 1.g4

How's this for anti-positional chess... and Nakamura is on the losing side of the freakshow for once, too...

I missed tonydal's response ... I'm not so much trying to be dogmatic as logical (I'm not inflexible, I'm perfectly willing to be shown the error of my thinking) ... I mean doesn't it make sense that playing to make one diagonal strong is going to cause problems for the other one? If the player playing against the double fianchetto can keep the position closed (or rather, from becoming wide open) one or the other fianchetto'd bishop seems like it must be a rather poorly placed piece. 

Sounds like the modern defence/attack or the HIPPOPOTAMUS!!!

@AnthonyCG "You can't really look at it that way.That's like saying "when your opponent castles opposite of you then pawn storm." Sure in some positions it's ok but making it some universal rule is gonna get you screwed a lot.Whatever you do depends on the position. 

Did I say "no need to think about the position!"? I hope I didn't say that.

But I do think it's reasonable to say: "when your opponent castles opposite you should consider the pawn storm plan..."  Likewise, IMO, a double-fianchetto opening calls up some natural counterplans to consider. So I'm not issuing commandments, ok? More like recommendations... 

(@tonydal and ivandh and other sinners: ... THE 10 RECOMMENDATIONS... *thunderclap*)

Blocking diagonals and stuff isn't something you just do on autopilot...

 "Autopilot" -- sounds braindead, I hope I haven't been advocating braindead chess. When I said, "two fianchettos just can't be good" all I meant was that it doesn't take any special effort to make one of the two long diagonals bad. Ordinary opening play toward the center while avoiding pawn exchanges should do the trick.  That's my "dogmatic" argument against double fianchettos. Also, no eating pork.

...and it actually forces you to play passively. (Your knights end up on crappy squares.)

 I don't get you there at all...   "it ... forces you to play passively"?  I mean I don't even understand what the "it" is ... seems like you mean blocking a diagonal, but how does that force you to play passively?! Closed positions aren't passive, just slow. And why are the Knights on crappy squares? Blocking diagonals makes you put your knights on crappy squares? You don't mean that, do you? 

That's why people always play Be3, Qd2 and Bh6 in all of those positions...

Ok, I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about there.

Sure it's good in certain situations but other times it's just a waste of time.

Well I can't argue with that.

I was about to say that double fianchettoes are par for the course in the Hippo, but the key difference in the setup here is that the knights are going to c6 and f6 rather than d7 and e7 as in the Hippo. I can't help but feel that's not such a great idea...they're more exposed to centre-pawn thrusts as compared to the Hippo (which also has pawns on d6 and e6 to shore up the centre), and they don't have a lot of squares to head to for attacking as White can guard the target squares quite easily (unlike the Hippo where sending the knights heading to c5 or f5 is a viable plan).

Also, the Hippo is intended to lie quiet and wait for your opponent to attack in any case (unless your opponent is cautious enough to take his/her time to prepare for an attack, in which case you need to consolidate your position and possibly start advancing a pawn wall or flank attack), so the sealing off of the long diagonals is of less concern. I'm not entirely sure whether the setup in this case is to attack or defend...depends on his grandfather's mindset I guess; but it doesn't seem so great for doing either.

Danny, judging by your 1200something rating I'd guess that your problem here isn't so much the opening of your grand-dad but more likely is related to specific shortcomings in your over all chess playing ability. 

When I'm telling young people (sorry but I don't know your age) or beginners about how to get better at chess.  I explain to them that once they know the movements of the pieces and how to exchange material there is simply one rule to follow to take you to the next level.  What is that rule? It is very, very simple:

DON'T GIVE AWAY YOUR PIECES OR PAWNS

This is really the key to not throwing away games as a beginner. 

For your case in particular here is one more thought for you.  The double finachetto that you're playing against is an extremely passive set up.  Basically he's waiting for you to do something so that he can punish you for it.  I suggest being much more PATIENT.   There's an old saying in chess that goes something like:  "if you don't know what to do, wait for your opponent to think of something, it's sure to be wrong.".  Try that out and see what happens.

I would assume that 1270 is good enough to understand that losing something without gaining something is bad.

poly,

if you could help me with implementing the very simple idea "don't give away pieces or pawns" part of chess I could go ahead and zoom up several hundred points or so. 

That's like saying the goal of basketball is "You have to score a lot of baskets!"  Well, yeah...  of course.

Still, your point about patience is appreciated and it's something I am working on.