| |
Main
Date: 18 Aug 2005 13:57:14
From: A Player
Subject: Anti-fianchetto strategy?
|
Hi.
I tend to like playing classic, open games. A while ago, in my local club
championship, I played 1.e4, hoping for a Danish Gambit. My opponent
replied 1. ... b6, went on the fianchetto the queenside bishop, and then
later caused my knight on f3 all kinds of tactical problems with this
fianchettoed bishop (most related to ruining the pawn structure around my
castled king, which castled kingside).
What are the accepted strategies for combating a fianchettoed bishop? I
think I've seen some people fianchetto their king's bishop to counter a
fianchettoed queen's bishop, but that doesn't really appeal to me because,
assuming the bishops are swapped, the side that fianchettoed the king's
bishop has holes in their pawn position near the king (assuming kingside
castling), while the other side doesn't have to be as concerned about the
holes in the queenside pawn position (assuming kingside castling).
Thanks for any help.
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2005 16:57:23
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Anti-fianchetto strategy?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"A Player" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What are the accepted strategies for combating a fianchettoed bishop? I
> think I've seen some people fianchetto their king's bishop to counter a
> fianchettoed queen's bishop, but that doesn't really appeal to me because,
> assuming the bishops are swapped, the side that fianchettoed the king's
> bishop has holes in their pawn position near the king (assuming kingside
> castling), while the other side doesn't have to be as concerned about the
> holes in the queenside pawn position (assuming kingside castling).
Well, there's some truth to this fear, but it's really not as justified
as you might think.
What happens more often is that you get a tactical advantage because
your fianchettoed bishop is protected by your king, whereas his is
loose.
You can't life in constant fear of attacks on your king. The
fianchettoed king position can be very strong, even without the bishop,
unless your opponent has the right pieces available to attack it.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2005 00:01:29
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Anti-fianchetto strategy?
|
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> You can't life in constant fear of attacks on your king. The
> fianchettoed king position can be very strong, even without the bishop,
> unless your opponent has the right pieces available to attack it.
Yes. In particular, if your opponent swaps his bishop for your
fianchettoed king's bishop, he's traded off the piece that's best suited
to exploiting the weak light squares (I'll assume you're playing
White) around your king.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Surprise Hat (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a hat but not like you'd expect
and it's twice as fast!
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2005 02:50:36
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Anti-fianchetto strategy?
|
>> You can't life in constant fear of attacks on your king. The
>> fianchettoed king position can be very strong, even without the bishop,
>> unless your opponent has the right pieces available to attack it.
>
> Yes. In particular, if your opponent swaps his bishop for your
> fianchettoed king's bishop, he's traded off the piece that's best suited
> to exploiting the weak light squares
Not if the QUEENS are still on the board.
Worse yet, the hole at f6 can create all kinds of mating threats that can
justify the sacrifice of up to three pieces, sometimes even the queen.
Back rank threats, skewer threats (like using a rook to force the king to h7
and slamming him with a B+R skewer with Rh8#.
The fianchetto is weak enough with the bishop; without it, the other side
has a positional advantage worth at least a pawn and sometimes a lot more.
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2005 18:20:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Anti-fianchetto strategy?
|
> Hi.
>
> I tend to like playing classic, open games. A while ago, in my local club
> championship, I played 1.e4, hoping for a Danish Gambit. My opponent
> replied 1. ... b6, went on the fianchetto the queenside bishop, and then
> later caused my knight on f3 all kinds of tactical problems with this
> fianchettoed bishop (most related to ruining the pawn structure around my
> castled king, which castled kingside).
A pawn on f3 usually stops up a Bb7. I combine that with Be3 and Qd2, then
g4-g5 or Bh6, depending on whether or not Black fianchettos on the kingside.
I held Nakamura even for 22 moves (computer said I was up half a pawn) with
that scheme, so I assume it's sound.
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2005 15:44:56
From: LSD
Subject: Re: Anti-fianchetto strategy?
|
"A Player" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi.
>
> I tend to like playing classic, open games. A while ago, in my local club
> championship, I played 1.e4, hoping for a Danish Gambit. My opponent
> replied 1. ... b6, went on the fianchetto the queenside bishop, and then
> later caused my knight on f3 all kinds of tactical problems with this
> fianchettoed bishop (most related to ruining the pawn structure around my
> castled king, which castled kingside).
>
> What are the accepted strategies for combating a fianchettoed bishop?
Castle queenside.
> I
> think I've seen some people fianchetto their king's bishop to counter a
> fianchettoed queen's bishop, but that doesn't really appeal to me because,
> assuming the bishops are swapped, the side that fianchettoed the king's
> bishop has holes in their pawn position near the king (assuming kingside
> castling), while the other side doesn't have to be as concerned about the
> holes in the queenside pawn position (assuming kingside castling).
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
>
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2005 06:54:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Anti-fianchetto strategy?
|
The 1... b6 openings can be tricky and seem to be Internet-friendly -
you encounter it a lot on the net.
I think though, perhaps you did not bolster e4 sufficiently or played a
too-early e5? I find people forget to maintain their center and
development when confronted with this opening at times, which explains
its trappy popularity. Often a d5! break, sacrificing a pawn is
effective, but must be properly planned. But I see people play e5 too
often when it is not warranted in the game, leading to a closed
positional maneuvering game then in which black's chances are not
worse.
In many cases with b6, you don't have to "combat" that fianchettoed
bishop on b7 - it isnt that effective - and black's white squares on
the kingside may be compromised a bit without a B on c8 to hold
important k-side squares.
It would be good to see the opening to make any useful comments,
though. Many people come out of the opening fine against b6 systems -
normal development, barring some traps, works well, but then don't know
how to pursue the coming middlegame.
|
|
