Typically, positions with the Bishops developed symmetrically... e3 and d3, f4 and c4, g5 and b5... are not particularly solid. An exception is the double-fianchetto with Bishops at g2 and b2, which can be quite resiliant given a good central formation.
Developing a position that looks cool, good idea!?
blueemu wrote:
Typically, positions with the Bishops developed symmetrically... e3 and d3, f4 and c4, g5 and b5... are not particularly solid. An exception is the double-fianchetto with Bishops at g2 and b2, which can be quite resiliant given a good central formation.
Although I don't personally think double-fianchetto is a good formation I confess I struggle againts it in play. The idea of commiting both the b and g pawn early and the extra step's to develop the bishop without a direct purpose doesn't do it for me.
There is a direct purpose... it gives you Bishop-control of e4, d4, e5 and d5. No other formation will offer that so early in the game.
Having said that... I don't often play the double-fianchetto either.
Is white's position Valid. I am a relative amatuer and have no engine and thought white's position looked rather formidable. I'm curious if anyone finds white' position to be sound, or is this just a nice to look at symmetrical assembly.