Talk:Fianchetto

Chess High‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is in the list of selected articles that are shown on Portal:Chess.

Untitled

The diagram here does not really display a typical fianchetto, especially with regard to the pawn structure. I think a King's Indian Attack/Defense type formation would be more illustrative, or maybe just pawns f2,g3,h2 and a bishop on g2 on an otherwise empty board. Cjpuffin 21:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the diagram. My only qualm is that all of them are in one picture. It makes it look like all three actually happened in a game. Splitting them into three diagram snipets would be nice. This link is Broken 20:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm also not too happy with the diagram, it's a pretty confusing board. Nicolasdz 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the position in the article black should play Bb7xg2(assuming it's black to move). attacking white's rook99.229.166.154 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--the problem with the diagram is that it (look at in the context of an actual game) represents a blunder by white, yielding up a rook. Joshua Kronengold (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It also regularly occurs in Indian defences, so-called since fianchettoing was the standard practice in chess as it was played in ancient India."

I believe this is wrong and I see no supporting documentation for this.

I have been under the understanding that "Indian" defenses are so called becasue they center on the placement of the biship via fianchetto. The Biship is refered to as an "Indian" due to the fact that it looks like a feather.

I have no supporting documentation for this either.

Suggested Diagram

From Rubinstein-Nimzowitsch, Marienbad 1925

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Perhaps a position from an actual game? At this position, Nimzowitsch amusingly points out (in My System): "Each side castles now with a clear conscience, for not even the most hypermodern pair of masters can produce more than four fianchettoed Bishops!"

Spelling

I see that "fianchetto" is the preferred spelling online (including at least Merriam Webster[1]). I also see "fiancetto." Is the latter just an error? --Robapalooza (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an error in Italian. 'che' produces the hard 'ke' sound, whereas 'ce' would produce something more similar to the second English pronunciation given, which in Italian is just wrong. 93.147.231.215 (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim deleted

It also regularly occurs in Indian defences, so-called since fianchettoing was the standard practice in chess as it was played in ancient India.

(emphasis mine). This assertion is false. The terminology of Indian defences is just a name. It has nothing to do with chess in "ancient India". Chaturanga as it was played cannot possibly have had fianchettoes because elephants moved differently to bishops and cannot occupy the b2 or g2 squares as white (b7 and g7 as black) that are the characteristic position of the fianchetto. For this reason I have deleted the bold section because it is absurd rubbish. If I am wrong, please prove it by citing sources. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about that. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And see Indian defense#Historical background for the origin of "Indian defenses". Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the Indian Defense article, I feel that deleting the whole phrase may be a little excessive. The key point is that the phrase referred to ancient India which implies Chaturanga. A better treatment may be to restore the text but replace "ancient" with more accurate phrasing, such as "nineteenth-century". Furthermore, it may be best to clarify this by having wording that suggests the style was employed by some prominent Indian masters. Or we could just leave it as it is now but link the Indian Defense article if it is not already linked. Your thoughts? -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one followed up on this. I believe I have a source that will discuss this intelligently and will post an update shortly. However, it should be pointed out that not all of the "Indian" defenses involve the fianchetto. Case in point, the Nimzo-Indian.

Ftjrwrites (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please update it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]