Bishops are happiest on the long diagonals
So after thinking for a long time over its first move, the android proudly plays l.g3! just to make sure it gets its bishop to g2 before the opponent's bishop lands on b7. Having decided on l.g3, it will also, no doubt, appreciate the defensive value of the formation with king castled behind a bishop on g2 and knight on f3, and it will also surely see the benefit of playing a pawn to c4, and perhaps even formulate the plan of advancing its neighbour to b4 and b5, just to enhance the bishop s influence on the long diagonal. No minor piece can bring as much influence to bear on the enemy position as a bishop in fianchetto.
With one piece of logical thought, our android has invented the Reti Opening and laid the foundations for hypermodernism.
Some players have a straight up-and-down attacking style. Others take a sideways approach of cautious shuffling and probing. The diagonal players seek the best of both worlds: their bishops look forwards in attack, while glancing backwards in defence; instead of seeking eye-to-eye confrontation down open files, they peer askance down the diagonals, edging forwards and sideways, square by square, with the fianchettoed* bishop marshalling the troops from the rear.
•Strictly speaking, fianchetto is a noun - a diminutive of an Italian word meaning wing or Hank - but the English have long misused it as a verb. The true pedant, however, will always refer to a 'bishop in fianchetto', and never a 'fianchettoed bishop'.
THE FIANCHETTO (1): BISHOPS
The Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen had great success in the early 1970s with the opening move l.b3. This position was reached after four moves of his game against Brian Eley at Hastings 1972-3. How should White plan his next few moves to give his fianchettoed bishop the life it deserves?
The way Larsen chose was admirably \\ logical: with the bishop on b2 at present limited in action by the black e-pawn, his first priority was to remove the blockage on its diagonal. He continued 5Jfe2 Bd7 6.0-0 Be7 7.f4! e4. The next task is to give it some support: 8.Ng3 (In place to support a later attack on g7 with Nf5 or Nh5.) 8...0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.c4 d5 ll.Nc3 (Don't worry that the bishop's view is impeded, It's only temporary.) ll...Re8 12.Rcl Bg4 13.Nce2 Nd7 (Black has the sensible aim of challenging White's long diagonal control with BfB. Somehow, though, he never gets round to it.) 14.h3 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Nc5? (Succumbing to a tempting beckon from the d3 square, but this was his last chance to play BfB.) 16.Qg4 g6 17J5! Nd3 18.fxg6 hxg6 (The power of the bishop is perfectly demonstrated after 18...feg6 19.Qe6 mate.) 19.Rxf7! Kxf7 (19...Nxcl or Nxb2 would have allowed mate in two with Qxg6+.) 20.Rfl+ Bffi (or 20...Kg8 21.Qxg6 mate) 21.Bxffi resigns. The final position is worse than it looks: 21...Qc8 22.Be5+ Ke7 23.Qg5+ leads to a quick mate (23...Ke6 24.Qxg6+ Kxe5 25.Qf6+ is one pretty Une), while 21...Qxf6 22.Qd7+! Re7 23.RxfB+ KxfB 24.Qxc6+ picks off the rook in the corner. Eley resigned at the correct moment: it was appropriate that the white bishop should have the last word.
Probably more nonsense has been written about planning in chess than any other aspect of the game. Those who like to imagine a moral dimension to chess strategy tell us that the game is won by the player who formulates a plan and carries it through properly. The worst sin, they say, is not to have a plan at all, but simply to lurch from move to move, reacting to circumstances rather than dictating events.
In fact, as many games are lost through pursuing bad plans as are won by pursuing good ones. One of the most effective strategies -especially at club level - is to wait for the opponent to have an idea, then show him what is wrong with it. In most positions, there is no such thing as a correct plan, only a flexible set of options ready to put into operation according to the options selected by the opponent.
The nearest you can come to the formulation of the plan is to ask yourself one simple question:
Post a comment