Yes, it's just to show you that you can even open your game that way and still play at GM level.  But as my previous post said, if you don't like the opening than that's legitimate too.  Not every chess player uses a finachetto, just like not every chess player plays 1.d4 or as black the sicilian.  If you do, it can be great, but if you don't, there are a dozen other great openings (or I guess I should say pawn structures) to chose from.

I see what your saying different types of opening for different people but what if I want to use the fianchettoed bishop tactic but things just don't seem to work out. ever

I guess another way to word the question would be is fianchettoing a bishop worth doing or worth the time to learn to be used effectively.

see your saying any other. Like what do you mean any other, is fianchettoing a bishop as good or better than castleing?

or even a double pawn up?
 

It's a hard question to answer because it's really a matter of preference.

On one hand it's useful to stay away from openings that are leading you to bad positions.  On the other hand you really shoudln't toss out finachetto openings completely after only 1 or a few bad experiences.

But they way you word it probably isn't the right question:

It's not the finachetto that you need to learn something about, it's the reason the attack worked.  It's kind of like blaming a successful attack on a knight on d2 instead of c3.  Either your defense was not good or you failed to generate play in a different sector of the board. 

E.g. if your opponent has an attacking position on your king, that's fine, many equal positions involve this.  But before it's very dangerous you should try to open the center (exchange pawns there) and pressure the center or open the queenside (if they're attacking on the knigside) and apply pressure there.  This will be a counter balance to your opponent's play.

I must be missing something here I wish I could figure it out but I don't have time I have to go to school now. I still think the fianchettoed bishop move is worthless but you seem to think otherwise. im not understanding your logic.

Well I'll keep it simple then.

Is a fianchettoed bishop a good move in modern times?

Yes.

Then don't play it in any of your games.

Don't view the fianchetto in isolation but rather see the effect it (and the other elements) has on the board as a whole, especially its relationship to the center.  Unless I'm playing a Leningrad Dutch (where white fianchettos usually anyway) I'd play a pawn to e3 if they play ...g6 first to avoid mutual fianchettos.  Though if you fianchetto first you can't avoid that. 

I agree with moses here. It works well if you are familiar with how it will be attacked.

Since you were not familiar with how your opponent would respond, he was able to execute a strong attack you might not have seen before.

I just can't believe someone who could wipe the board with me in blitz is asking this type of question. Go read Modern Chess Strategy by Watson. Even knights on the rim arent neccesarily dim, anymore. It all depends on the position.

I have always been told knights on the rim are bad.

They are, except when they're not.

No your wrong its always bad. Thats why the saying was phrased in chess lol.

No see that knight is like a lone wolf out in the open and just ready to be taken while black has way more developement.

What does that have to do with anything? Just because I could win a game of chess agaisnt you doesnt mean i'm the next top smarty pants on openings.

Yes.

No, "you're" wrong, "it's" not always bad - ... Na5 is standard for Black in some lines of the Spanish and the Two Knights, ...Nh5 is book in the King's Gambit, Schallop Defence, after 4. e5, and there may be others.

Indeed.

ok buddy, heres a tip. when you want to start playing knights on rims agaisnt me or anyone else go ahead and see what happens.