Talk:King's Fianchetto Opening

ht tp://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa05l17.htm I'd wish people at least tried to do one search before putting on the cit-needed. 91.153.52.32 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

No idea of the point your trying to make. ChessCreator (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree ChessCreator. That stumped me as well.Chesslover96 (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I have added the alternate names for Benko's Opening:

• Hungarian Opening
• Barczay Opening
• Bilek Opening

I was surprised nobody had added these earlier. I thought they (especially the Hungarian) were fairly popular alternate names. Does anyone know of any others?Chesslover96 (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. Why is this listed under irregular chess opening if it is a popular opening move? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.14.194.33 (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

^ I don't know. People do use it, about 5-8% of all openings usually. My normal response as black is b6 [bf1g2], d5 [nb1c3], ng8f6 then work with whatever has been played. I tend to win in this situation- it's irregular and forced for white's development, and unsettles a player to see me use those moves. And there isn't really a name for this opening either. 101.161.25.118 (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

The fact is 1.g3 simply does not lend itself to concrete analysis the way openings such as the Sicilian do. Both White and Black may adopt any number of different setups and play their moves in any number of different orders. The whole "Black responses" section is rubbish, pointing to a rather useless wikibook and referring to numerous rather useless ECO codes. On top of all that, it has no citations. I'm just going to remove the whole section. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

For a first chess move by White, which in this talk is 1.g3, this opening carries 5 different names. Wow! How can one even breathe if one stupid opening carries so many names?! Chess theory is a vast knowledgebase, so why are we making it so complicated by giving so many names for one stupid move? Can't one single name be enough?

Let's see what we have for 1.g3:

• King's Fianchetto Opening
  • Why King's? It's not the king that will be fianchettoed, so better rename the opening to Kingside Fianchetto Opening, if anything.

• Hungarian Opening
  • This name is the best.

• Benko Opening
  • Or is it Benko's Opening? It's very inconsistent that some openings are written in posessive form (i.e., with 's), while others are not.

• Barczay Opening
  • Who the f*** is Barczay?!

• Bilek Opening
  • Who?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:261:7BD:B00:AD0D:157E:639:BD12 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Start-Class chess articles
• Mid-importance chess articles
• Start-Class chess articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Chess articles