That particular setup you showed? Looks awkward as hell, especially if you really mean your opponent creates the exact same setup (who the heck would do that?!) and you don't move your knights at all. Double fianchettoes in themselves are probably usually not a good idea, but it seems viable in the Hippo.
Double Fianchetto - Good/Bad
Sort:
Thank you for your replies. Both teams would not be both be doing a double fianchetto. I was simply showing that it was done the same for both teams.
Horrible opening man.
what i dont like about "your double fianchetto" is that you wind up weakening the pawn structure for your king's defense; no matter which side you castle to! plus, you have done this weakening early, which gives your opponnent plenty of time to formulate an attack. Good luck!
Re: the diagram above...
I don't think a hippo enthusiast would be that eager to break with c5 so early, nor would he commit his kingside to castling or Nf6 that early. With such a passive move order, creating targets is suicide.
He'd play for a small center with e6 and d6, centralize the knights, and castle only after the attacker's intentions became clear...if at all. He'd hold off on pawn breaks and crystallizing the structure until it became clear there was an advantage in doing so.
Anyway, Kamsky often plays the double fianchetto, moving toward a hippo-like structure, and he's contested for the world title. So it's not like these ideas don't have high-level support. Just not in the way the OP promoted them.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Jun 5, 2010
0
#9
The one problem I see is that it makes it a bit difficult to play in the center of the board, one of your bishops will be locked out of the action. Although below master level just about anything is playable.
Jun 5, 2010
0
#10
hippo enthusiast
hippo enthusiast
hippo enthusiast
hippo enthusiast
hippo enthusiast
hippo enthusiast
Sorry...
I will sometimes double fianchetto in the English...
sure, some (and very few) lines a double-F will work, (like grunfeld) but most of the time its just garbage. youre going to need to make a thrust in the center, and most likely one bishops scope is going to suck, plus those extra pawns moves when better things were possible.
well, one of the bishops is always going to suck in pretty much any opening, the reason the DF looks bad to me is the wasted tempo to hasten the inevitable. It takes 2 moves to fianchetto a bishop - if it does not gain you anything but a rotten bishop on b2 instead of a rotten bishop on c1 - what was the point?
is you friend black or white
here's one from QID.
The double fianchetto is fine, I think. If Korchnoi played 40. .. Rxd4, he probably would've won, right? Oh wait, he did - my bad!
I think the system the OP showed is not good, but the double fianchetto is viable in numerous openings.
It is quite playable in the English, the Sicilian Dragons, the KID, the QID, the Nimzo-Larsen, the KIA, the pirc/modern, and probably others I am missing.
Personally, I play it a lot, in the English, the Accelerated Dragon, and the QID. It exerts great pressure on the center, and often wins you a rook exchange, if the opponent gets careless. You just can't rush it. You need to develop knights as well, and tend to the center pawn structure.
I stumbled upon a game by Ponomariov when he had a 2684 elo rating where he double fianchettos and wins on white.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1201082
I can't tell if its a rapid game or not though. I'm guessing with such a bizarre opening, it is.
I would like to ask what people think of the Double Fianchetto opening. I use it a lot so I decided it was time to see what other people think of it.
I usely follow it up so it looks like the following
Please post your opinion and any suggestions you have to improve my position.