Hey, 

I have tried few openings involving fianchetto of bishops and I really struggle with it. Most of the time my bishop never sees the light of the day. I'm unable to play kings indian defense etc, because after a while I don't know how to maximise my fianchetto bishop and it remains blocked. Can anyone tell me some exercise, some easy opening, some master games or something to improve fianchetto skills, which I think is a good skill to have, thanks a lot. 

A couple of games worth studying :

*Neishtadt - Kotov, USSR 1956
*Kasparov - Andersson, 5th game of the Belgrad match, 1985

Fianchetto openings usually involve the systematic dismantling of the center, an art which I am really fond of. However, it is difficult to implement. Some openings you might want to try are:

Alekhine's defense

Grunfeld Defense

English opening

Nimzo-Larsen opening

English defense

watch a couple videos for each one (maybe not alekhine's defense though) and you'll be able to see thematic pawn breaks that demolish centers.

Hey thanks for all the replies

@Snudoo: I have seen videos of some of those openings but don't really get it much. Could you be kind enough to show an example of breaking the centre and getting my bishop into action. Thanks a lot. 

"I'm really bad at fianchetto openings?"

TMI ! 

The understanding of any opening is not just about understanding one piece.  You need to understand the entire scheme.

Take the King's Indian you mention.  What is Black's whole idea?  If you say storm the kingside, you are wrong!  The Kingside storm only really works in the Mar Del Plata - a single variation of the Kings Indian.  Saying the Kings Indian is nothing more than a kingside pawn storm is like saying the Civil War was nothing more than fight over the legality of slavery.  It was about economics.  The North believed the Fed should be in control, the South the States.

The Kings Indian is all about controlling the dark squares.  With both c4 and e4 played, d4 is weakened, hence the e5 or c5 advance.

Those that understand this idea of controlling d4 and the dark squares know that as a result, Black's pawns end up on dark squares, making that Fianchettoed Bishop that you question, believe it or not, Black's "Bad Bishop"!  It does not breathe the fire that the Dragon Bishop does.  It is more like Black's light squared bishop is in the French!

In the Kings Indian, Black's strongest pieces are the Knights, Light-Squared Bishop, and Queen.

WOW your good pfren

IMHO fianchetto openings are not all that good to begin  with. They are usually based on the hypermodenr theory advoicated bt Nimzovich that says that we should allow our opponent to build a strong center and then we should challenge that center as the game progresses. Tarrasch on the other hand said it is better to start out with a strong center. That was the old argument between Tarrasch and Nimzovich. As it turns out, modern day computer analysis tells us it is better to start off by building a strong center. So Tarrasch was right. For that reason I usually do not use fianchetto openings.

Playing the fianchetto requires more concrete knowledge than you absolutely need at that level. I suggest first starting with a more direct approach of developing bishops by moving center pawns, as doing so serves a dual purpose at the very least. Say for example, you place your d-pawn on d3 or d4 in order to develop Bc1, you will always have some added control of the center by the d-pawn move you made,  and will also have the option of where you develop this Bc1 ( e3, f4, g5, etc) depending on what the opponent does, while if you compare this to a move like b3 which telegraphs your intention to develop the bishop to b2, while doing nothing to fight for the center, you will see why the more direct approach serves you better, at least in the earlier part of your chess.

@IM prefen: Most of the games I play I experiment stuff and don't play seriously. especialy when playing lower rated. While I'm not a great player, i'm not a noob either, I have ideas of the concept and when playing serious would not miss much blunders, so I think it is not unreasonable for me to learn openings and concepts like fianchetto bishop. Here is one of my better games when I'm more focused

@Dr Frank : I agree i'm also thinking like you hence my dislike for this concept but I feel it is an important concept to know. 

Thanks for thriller fan and king 5 also, great concepts. I will need some time to grasp it though. 

Can anyone show me a game, with fianchetto bishop, where you break the centre and your bishop becomes a very active piece. Thanks. 

This is an interesting discussion. I hope it continues.

Is there any reason for a player of lesser skill, like me, not to study and use an opening that is based on a fianchetto bishop? I'm not very good at openings where you begin by trying to directly control the center with pawns. I just don't feel very comfortable playing that way.  But I do like the idea of developing the knight at the very beginning and then having a bishop attack the center on a long diagonal. 

That's all fine and good if you actually understand what you are doing.

For example, what is the fundamental idea behind the Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, and Queen's Gambit Declined?  Three Openings that go together and have the same fundamental idea.

If you cannot answer that question without reading further in this message, then you are not ready to play a hypermodern approach!

I see so many players under 1600 go around saying they are going to play the Queen's Indian.  You watch them play a game as Black, and the game starts 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 b6?? And all you can do is shake your head!  This player is absolutely clueless.

The answer to the question above is that after 1.d4, if Black is playing the Nimzo-Indian, Queens Indian, and Queens Gambit declined, he is looking to prevent an early e4 by white!

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3, Black needs to play 3...Bb4 or 3...d5, preventing e4, or Black can also play 3...c5, disrupting d4 before White can advance e4 and completely control the center.

After 3.Nf3, there is no threat of e4, and Black has time to play 3...b6, not simply to put a Bishop on a long diagonal, but to CONTROL e4!, at least temporarily until White plays d5, but he no longer has the big center and the dark squares are weakened.

All the more reason why I say openings are not about a certain piece.  They are usually about a certain square, or a color complex.

I have put in bold the parts that either apply to me or, like samchessman123, represent a question I also have.

To be honest, when I was learning to play in the late 1960s, we didn't learn "openings." We just played. Now, in my golden years, I have studied a few openings, but retaining the details is sometimes difficult when you reach a certain age--and life events have a way of crowding out everything else.  Still, certain openings interest me, and openings that involve fianchetto bishops are interesting. The idea of attacking the center from the flanks is interesting. 

@ Antonin: Yes I have the same problems as you, thanks for continuing the discussion

After reading thriller fan and dr frank what I have gathered is

1. Either you are with Nimzovich (fianchetto)  or Tarassh (control centre)

I have decided I'm with Tarassh, and now play without fianchetto. As thriller fan is saying many 1600 and lower players who use fianchetto don't know what they are doing and trying to be fancy, so you have an advantage when you stick to your strengths. May if I ever reach 1600 mark, I will study them. 

The 1600 rating was an arbitrary number.  It's is not a magic number that signifies the moment to suddenly study and play hypermodern openings.  Some stick to classical openings their entire life.  Maybe late in his career he adjusted, but look at Anand in the 90s when he went against Kasparov in the World Championship.  Take a look at what he mostly played:

1.e4 as White - Classical Chess

QGA against d4 - Classical Chess

1...e5 against 1.e4 - Classical Chess

All I was saying was that whatever rating you are, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000 even, if you don't understand the basic understanding of the openings, diving into highly theoretical hypermodern openings like the King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Grunfeld, Pirc, Modern, Alekhine, etc, and the English or Reti as White, is a huge mistake.

Classical Openings like the Double King Pawn openings (Spanish, Italian, and Scotch) and QGD follow every opening principle to the letter.  Most others have some form of violation.  Queen coming out early (Scandinavian), relinquishing the center (King's Indian), etc.

Hypermodern openings require a heavy understanding of what is going on or you will get mauled.  Classical openings tend to be more "error-friendly".  You make a mistake in the QGD (not outright blunder - just a small or medium error) and you might be worse, but still have a shot at survival.  One mistake in the King's Indian Defense and it's lights out, especially for Black!

Too many players try to play that way off of sheer memory of moves, but have no earthly idea what they are doing, and the moment their opponent deviates, they are clueless.

If you play 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 b6?? as Black, you are clueless because you just proved that you don't understand the fundamental principle behind the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian.  I am not saying that you personally do this, but I have seen many amateurs play this exact sequence as Black.  All you can do is shake your head when you see that!

Read "My System" and "Chess Praxis" by Aron Nimzowitsch.

Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch's approach to the game was rather dogmatic.  It seems time has passed them by at the highest levels.  For amateurs like me, they are sound enough

May I ask in what way are they sound enough? I assume you are referring to Tarrasch's principles. Are they sound enough because they are easier for a player on an amateur level to grasp, or because they fit well with the style you prefer to play?

Fianchettoed Bishops are the basis of latent dynamism. It's not about the Bishop on an open diagonal, it affects the whole board. That's why fianchetto openings like the Catalan are very popular nowadays.

Tarrasch opined it was necessary to occupy the center of the board with pawns, and pieces should be developed to support the pawn center. The Hypermoderns attack the center with pieces on the flanks, like the fianchettoed bishops.  I look at advantages in chess in categories; material, space, and tempos.  Tarrasch emphasized space.

Problem was, Tarrasch was dogmatic.