Is a bishop fienchetto a bad idea ?

crtexxx wrote:

My raps are too embarassing, and I couldn't do it for my life.

At least you do it. All you have to do is be creative and know alot of rhyming words.

how has this gone so off-topic? the question is easily answered. a fiancetto is good if the diagonal isn't blocked by your own pieces, bad if it is blocked by your pieces

that's what I am saying. if the position is or can be opened, the fiancetto works. if it stays closed, you've waisted time. simple as that.

Beat me to it! ..... though I was going to say "better than a Knight Fianchetto! .....takes too long to reach B2 and G2!"

Hey Chess.com ! any chance of implementing "spellcheck" in FORUM titles?

Fianchetto, FiAnchetto, FIANCHETTO!

I hate to go off topic, but I beg to differ.

I'm not sure white likes his attack.

Remellion you halve a point but 2 questions...

1) with a rook is it really a fianchetto?

2) is it worth all the time you would spend getting the rook to that position?

Also a drawback is that while in both cases the fianchettoed piece helps with defense, the bishop will also influence the center and be usable offensively

What's your plan? Ok, have you figured that out? Good. Now, what will help you achieve that plan more easily, a fianchettoed bishop, or a bishop any some other square? Great, there's your answer.

Discussion over?

(1) No it's not. But we all know what a "rook fianchetto" is if we heard one.

(2) Usually? No. I have played it in some casual game with friends before, but that was mainly for laughs. The things to note are (a) the rook can't be kicked easily since white's h-pawn and dark bishop are MIA and (b) that one piece is easily doing the job of 2 or 3 pieces by guarding both f7 and h7. That frees up more of your own pieces to go attack white's king.

Ah yes!  The White Castle hamburger attack: to the digestion variations.

At every corner of the board no player can keep it in?!

Which you don't seem to possess. If you honestly cannot grasp the concept that the strength of a piece is ALWAYS relative, and that activity itself is a relative concept, then you don't know the first thing about Chess.

Have you considered the possiblity that Smirnov harped on this for you because you needed it, and that you could have gotten the same thing hiring a class A player to train you initially for less money?  Then move to the GM when you approach 2000...

I do find it funny that because you hired a GM and he told you something to pay attention to, that you consider it completely revolutionary and have to share it with the unwashed masses that cannot comprehend it ;)...

Did Smirnov actually tell you that most chess players cannot understand the basic concept behind the "a knight on the rim is grim" platitude?

Smirnov's teaching is all about building a solid base understanding of chess.

It's a new approach

Yes, I am sure in the thousands of years of chess history, nobody has ever taught someone chess by starting with a solid base understanding of the game's principles...have you been sampling mushrooms in the woods or something? :)