Fianchetto nonsense ?

[Henk]

Double fianchetto even worse. For d3 and e3 squares might easily get very weak in middle game. Expect a knight on d3 or e3. Bishop a6 and h6. Rd8, Re8.

But what are alternatives ? Be2, Bd2 standing in the way. After Bc4 one can expect b5 or d5 and Ba2 has same problem as fianchetto.

Be3 Ng4 and Bd3 Nb4.

Maybe castling soon and put bishop (back) on f1 and c1.

[PK]

Double fianchetto can be fun. Nowadays I'm perfectly content with a single one, but see this:

[pgn]1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. g3 d5 4. b3 dxc4 5. bxc4 e5 6. Bb2 e4 7. Nd4 c5 8. Nc2 Nc6 9. Bg2 Bd6 10. Nc3 Bf5 11. Ne3 Bg6 12. Ncd5 Be5 13. Bxe5 Nxe5 14. Qa4+ Nfd7 15. h4 h6 16. h5 Bh7 17. Rh4 f5 18. Rb1 Qc8 19. Bh3 Rf8 20. Nf4 Qc6 21. Qxc6 bxc6 22. Ne6 Ke7 23. Nxf8 Rxf8 24. Rb7 Kd6 25. Rf4 g5 26. hxg6 Nxg6 27. Rxf5 Rxf5 28. Nxf5+ 1-0[/pgn]

[Henk]

Aha leaving pawns on d2, e2. Wonder what happens when penalizing pawn moves but maximizing bishop mobility. Perhaps then you see bishops on c4 or f4.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Double fianchetto can be fun. Nowadays I'm perfectly content with a single one, but see this:

[pgn]1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. g3 d5 4. b3 dxc4 5. bxc4 e5 6. Bb2 e4 7. Nd4 c5 8. Nc2 Nc6 9. Bg2 Bd6 10. Nc3 Bf5 11. Ne3 Bg6 12. Ncd5 Be5 13. Bxe5 Nxe5 14. Qa4+ Nfd7 15. h4 h6 16. h5 Bh7 17. Rh4 f5 18. Rb1 Qc8 19. Bh3 Rf8 20. Nf4 Qc6 21. Qxc6 bxc6 22. Ne6 Ke7 23. Nxf8 Rxf8 24. Rb7 Kd6 25. Rf4 g5 26. hxg6 Nxg6 27. Rxf5 Rxf5 28. Nxf5+ 1-0[/pgn]

dc4 is a major mistake (exchanging d5 for b3 pawn)

after 4...Bg4 instead black is quite probably already better.

I guess double fianchettoe is almost always bad, but fun, definitely yes.

[PK]

Yes, I'm aware of that mistake. Bg4 would be a standard anti-Reti setup, the very reason I stopped playing double fianchetto in that form. I have tried it in a recent tournament game though, knowing that my opponent enjoys playing bad opening moves. The game followed entirely different path, and I like it even though I could have converted my advantage a bit earlier.

[pgn]
1. f4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. e3 b6 4. Nc3 Bb7 5. Bc4 d5 6. Bb3 Nf6 7. d4 O-O 8.
O-O c5 9. a3 e6 10. Ne5 Nc6 11. Ba4 Rc8 12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Bd2 Bb7 14. Qe2
Re8 15. Be1 Nd7 16. Bg3 f6 17. Nxd7 Qxd7 18. Rad1 Qc6 19. Rf2 Rcd8 20. Bh4
Rd7 21. Qd2 e5 22. fxe5 fxe5 23. Ne2 Ba6 24. c3 Qe6 25. Nc1 Qg4 26. Bg3
exd4 27. exd4 cxd4 28. Rf4 dxc3 29. Rxg4 cxd2 30. Rxd2 Rf7 31. Nd3 Bxd3 32.
Rxd3 Bxb2 33. Rb4 Rc8 34. Bf4 Be5 35. Bh6 Bd6 36. Rb1 Bc5+ 37. Kh1 Rf5 38.
Re1 Kf7 39. h3 Re8 40. Red1 Re2 41. Rxd5 Rxd5 42. Rxd5 Bxa3 43. Rd7+ Re7
44. Rd8 Rb7 0-1
[/pgn]

Two conclusions from these two games:

1) double fianchetto has no fixed strategy, you can end up with many central pawn formations. It's no use arguing about the follow-up, you can do anything.
2) therefore it pays to play double fianchetto when you have some grasp of positional principles, your opponent is weaker in that department but you think he can cover up this weakness by playing normal opening

[Henk]

I don't understand what bishop is doing there on g2. It takes two tempi to get it to c4. But then you get bad king safety. So this position is not good for white. Also weak square on f2.

[[
Maybe French with a queen side fianchetto is playable.
Or reversed Sicilian. I don't know much or anything about it too.
]]

O wait white should have already captured on d5. But then it gets an inferior pawn structure. So completely busted.

[d] r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2n2n2/2b1p3/4P3/5NP1/PPPN1PBP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 1 8