Talk:King's Fianchetto Opening

Complaint

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]

Alternate Names

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]

Why listed under irregular

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 "Black's responses" section looks beyond saving

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]