Talk:Fianchetto

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: :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. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are right about that.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  And see Indian defense#Historical background for the origin of "Indian defenses".  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Please update it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim deleted