You'll want to trade off the bishop. Assuming you have White, with your bishop on e3 and your queen on d2, playing the bishop to h6 will force a trade, leaving Black with weak dark squares. Of course, your dark square bishop will be gone, too.
You can also try to advance your g and h pawns, if you're castled queenside, breaking up his defenses.
The Yugoslav attack against the Sicilian Dragon is a classic example of attacking this formation.
Originally posted by GyrI've never been impressed with the strategy of trading Bishops. The weak squares are mostly only weak if the opponent has a Bishop that can attack them and the one who fianchetto'd does not. At least that's my experience. I welcome people who go through the effort of making that trade when I fianchetto on the Kingside (generally when I am Black and playing KID, or when I am White and we're playing a closed Sicilian)...they use tempo accomplishing nothing while I am doing more important things.
You'll want to trade off the bishop. Assuming you have White, with your bishop on e3 and your queen on d2, playing the bishop to h6 will force a trade, leaving Black with weak dark squares. Of course, your dark square bishop will be gone, too.
You can also try to advance your g and h pawns, if you're castled queenside, breaking up his defenses.
The Yugoslav attack against the Sicilian Dragon is a classic example of attacking this formation.
Try putting the bishop on h6 defended by a queen on the same diagonal and then instead of trading of the bishop play h4-h5 this way you can prevent black from defending with h5 and you can open up the h file ! And if black takes the bishop the queen will penetrate in the the weakened kingside.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually, that is white's best strategy. I don't disagree that it costs a lot of tempo to do it but the fianchetto bishop is almost always black's best defensive piece, like in the dragon. Of course, black tries to get as much compensation for the weakenend dark squares by expanding on the queenside but it's certainly better for white to trade off the bishop if possible. The dark squares are then attacked by the white queen. However, in some openings where white fianchettos the bishop over his king black may be too far behind in tempo already and cannot afford to attempt to trade off the bishop.
I've never been impressed with the strategy of trading Bishops. The weak squares are mostly only weak if the opponent has a Bishop that can attack them and the one who fianchetto'd does not. At least that's my experience. I wel ...[text shortened]... empo accomplishing nothing while I am doing more important things.
I find a kingside castle behind a fianchetto'd bishop almost impossible to attack. One thing you can do is not attack and instead try to make his fianchetto'd bishop useless. This can be accomplished if you adjust your pawn structure in such a way as to have the bishop be aiming right into a strong blockade of pawns.
If you do really want to attack it though, I think the best way is with pawns. If you can get a pawn on g5 (assuming you're white) and one on either f6 (preferably) or h6 you'll be in pretty good shape. You can make his bishop move, and eventually make it useless, then attack the space left behind.
Read the Art of Attack by Vukovic for a whole chapter on attacking the fianchettoed castle position.
I'm surprised people think it is hard to attack such a position! !! If anything it is slightly easier than attacking the castled position with the 3 pawns in front of the king on the starting squares!
The fact that the g pawn has moved ahead one square makes it a 'hook' that an advancing f or h pawn can attack. If you can (half) open the h file you have good attacking chances. If you force a concession by making the h pawn in front of the king move two squares (to prevent the opening of the h file) suddenly the king is starting to sweat a little and there are sometimes sacrificial possibilities against his advanced h pawn as part of an attack on the g or h file.
Originally posted by davfrai agree totally. i find it lot of harder when white plays positionally instead of going after my king with kingside pawnstorm
I play the Pirc and the Kings Indian frequently, and I`m quite happy to see me opponent spending moves on swopping off my bishop.
As long as his bishop is lost as well, what`s the point?
David
Originally posted by davfraperhaps you did castle queenside!!
And whilst you`re doing all this, what`s your opponent doing? Unless you`ve castled Queen side, you`re weakening your own kings defence far more than your opponents.
David
also...if you have castled on the same side and you are afraid to move your own h pawn when there is good attack potential then take up checkers
..`.if you have castled on the same side and you are afraid to move your own h pawn when there is good attack potential then take up checkers`
It`s not a question of being afraid to move your h pawn. Your original point was that you could weaken your opponents king side pawns by moving your own king side pawns.
That doesn`t make sense.
By the way, checkers is a great game and when played properly, requires a lot of thought.
David
Originally posted by davfrait's NOT the same situation for you if your g pawn is on the original square
..`.if you have castled on the same side and you are afraid to move your own h pawn when there is good attack potential then take up checkers`
It`s not a question of being afraid to move your h pawn. Your original point was that you could ...[text shortened]... game and when played properly, requires a lot of thought.
David
and MOREOVER, I said you may have castled queenside! a VERY common theme against, for example, black's fianchettoed castled position in the Dragon and in the King's Indian...
Have you heard of the Saemisch variation????????? you show your ignorance with your post.