Discussing Fianchettoing

Recently I have been very interested in the question of whether a fianchetto of a bishop (or both of them) is a good idea. 

I understand that different openings lead to different positions, which in turn have different requirements (such as whether the player should fianchetto a bishop or not). 

Similarly, a fianchettoed bishop can have pros and cons in a position. On one hand, a fianchettoed bishop can give greater control of a long diagonal. Conversely, if a fianchettoed bishop is lost, this can lead to weak squares of one colour or another (especially if the opposing bishop is still on the board).

Because of this I am not really set on whether I should play a fianchetto. An example of this comes in my learning of the Philidor defence. 

The Larsen variation (above) con often be played with a fianchettoed Bishop. 

Alternatively, a variation of the Philidor including Bc4 (or other variations such as the Antoshin lines) are better played with short development of the kingside bishop.

These are only two lines of one opening, with clear differences between them. 

What are your opinions on whether a bishop should be fianchettoed?

 

This may sound simplistic, but one of the main issues (with any piece placement really) is how much it's blocked by friendly pieces. Blocked by enemy pieces (even a solid pawn chain) isn't always so bad, as it can be broken down, or even sacrificed against. A friendly unit is an invincible obstruction.

So this is the main problem with a double fianchetto. Not only do the knight's most natural development squares block them, but any pawn in the center will too.

Many openings leave you with 1 knight or bishop that will need a few moves to improve, or will need to wait until a later stage in the game to realize its full potential, but with a double finachetto you'll often be stuck with 2 (or more) minor pieces that need definite improvement.

---

You posted an opening that shows a very active fianchettoed bishop, lets look at a counter example from the kings indian defense.

Black has practically forced this central pawn structure to block his bishop, what's more is he put his knight on f6 too, so what's going on?

It's ok to have 1 minor piece in a defensive role. The bishop helps shore up the kingside dark squares and adds some influence to the center all while not getting in any other pieces way. The c8 bishop hasn't moved, but as with many e4-e5 structures that involve kingside attacking ideas, it's pretty good on its home square, and the knights can dance towards squares like h5 and f4.

All this to say, the health of the finachetto is linked to the health of the position in general. If your other 3 minor pieces are not badly placed, then even a fairly passive finachetto can be good.

Possibly also useful for general piece evaluation are these 3 tiers of piece activation:

3rd best) Purely defensive, but it defends an important pawn or square. While it has a useful job now, in later stages of the game you'll almost certainly have to spend some moves activating it.

2nd best) Mobile. Controls many open squares. Other than helping to restrict the opponent in general, this piece hopes to use its mobility to gain a best rating in the future.

Best) Directly attacking a vulnerable enemy piece (often a pawn) or aiding in a mate attack. Often a piece that's infiltrated to the opponent's side.

By the way the best finachettoed bishops come from openings like dragon, catalan, or benko. They're good because you usually have an open file for a rook on the queenside to combine with the bishop to harass the enemy from a distance.

Oh, and the other issue with finachettos is actually well represented by your first diagram, and that is...

it's a pawn move in the opening. It's a slower way to develop (that, or you must give up some central control to the opponent's pawns).

I've started playing with it to give it a try based on some recent reading. It seems to be working for me. Yes, you give up some direct control of the centre early on, but the Bishop on that long diagonal can become pretty useful in the middle game. It alls depends on what you're comfortable with, I suppose. 

So are you saying that the most important aim of any structure (whether including a fianchetto or not) is to ensure that one's pieces are working with each other and not against each other? That is a simple way of saying it, but it does help me to understand it. Whether a fianchetto is "healthy" depends on the remaining elements of the position.... am I getting the right idea from your comment?

Thank you, I will try to keep these difference in piece activation in mind during my play. 

I am very interested in the Catalan - I think that will be next on my list! I will also have a look at the Dragon/Benko as well if I decide to extend my use of the fianchetto.

Yeah the slower development is one of the main flaws that I have seen with playing a fianchetto. Sometimes I don't play it if I feel that it would make my play too slow - it depends on the game really.

I think @Morphysrevenges may be confusing fianchetto with the other f----o word. Other than that, it would just be from your profile pic. 

See that's the thing. The use of a fianchetto does depend on the position. In some instances, it will be absolutely fine, in others, it may be too slow (as mentioned above). It depends on the game and with more practise will come more familiarity. 

I agree that the usefulness of a fianchetto really depends on the overall position. But I've also read that it doesn't necessarily give control of the center to the opponent--it can be used as a way to support an attack by the pawns on the center.

Yeah, I think you're getting the right idea.

I mean, there are a lot of elements in chess, but you can more or less simplify it all down to piece activity and king safety.

And part of piece activity is trying to place pieces and pawns in a way so that they're not physically blocking each other.

Yeah, since finachettos are a bit slow, players can't always afford to be putting a pawn in the center. That's because it has to be defended, and the opponent can easily open the position (opening the position always favors the better developed side).

So fianchettos are usually associated with so called hypermodern ideas... where basically you're letting your opponent build a big pawn center, that you try to attack later.

As an easy example of good vs bad:

Thanks for the good explanation and examples @sammy_boi . These concepts are often hard to put into words in a way that can be easily grasped. Also this thread poses a question that is thoughtful and interesting to many beginning players. My first year playing chess had me going "ooooh Hypermodern"! 

Exactly, whether a fianchetto aids the control of the centre will depend on the nature of the position.

No worries, and thank you again