Originally posted by thbSicilian. Leads to much sharper games (Dragon) or more positional (Najorf) plus it doesn't often leave black cramped.
I´ve been playing the pirc and the sicilian lately and I´m curious about which of those two openings against e4 you think is better and, importantly, WHY you think so.
The reason for me posting this thread really is the fact that I have noticed that when I play the Pirc I get through the first standard moves OK but then I run into trouble when the game gets closer to the middlegame from the opening. I seem to get lost somehow, having trouble finding moves and often end up a little "stuck" giving my opponent every change to improve their position.
Also the pirc, in my oppinion, can be a bit boring for black if white castles kingside because that reduces the queenside attack possibilities for black. Now I´m really wondering if I should continue with the pirc or return again to sicilian kan which I often played before with pretty good result.
I just don´t always want to play the kan because my opponents will then know what I play and can prepare very well so I think I should have at least two possibilities against e4.
Hope you will comment on this. Thanks.
Originally posted by thbAnything but the Sicilian - the Sicilian is for sissies.
I´ve been playing the pirc and the sicilian lately and I´m curious about which of those two openings against e4 you think is better and, importantly, WHY you think so.
Just kidding. Objectively, I'd have to say the Sicilian is better because it gives Black good chances and a freer game. That said, it really depends on your temperament as well. Some people like the solid positions that come out of the Pirc; some people cannot handle the energy required to play a Sicilian (open).
Which is better - the Sicilian or the French - now THAT would be a serious think!
Originally posted by thbHave you considered the Ruy or the French?
The reason for me posting this thread really is the fact that I have noticed that when I play the Pirc I get through the first standard moves OK but then I run into trouble when the game gets closer to the middlegame from the opening. I seem to get lost somehow, having trouble finding moves and often end up a little "stuck" giving my opponent every change to ...[text shortened]... I should have at least two possibilities against e4.
Hope you will comment on this. Thanks.
I really don't think you can say one opening is better than another, especially at the under-2300 level.
It depends on your abilities and preferences - you might be a good tactical player, you might prefer open positions, you might have time and inclination to learn bucketloads of theory and keep up to date with every new move etc etc.
It might even vary depending on the opponent or the game situation. You might be playing someone you know has a good knowledge of opening theory, so you might avoid main line sicilians. Or, you might just have to draw against a higher-rated opponent to get a prize in a tournament.
Chess isn't that simple!
Originally posted by thbIt is possible to slip into a favorable sicilian dragon from the pirc. Example:
I´ve been playing the pirc and the sicilian lately and I´m curious about which of those two openings against e4 you think is better and, importantly, WHY you think so.
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6. dxc5 Qa5!
Threatening Nxe4 so. . . 7. Bd3 Qxc5 Enter the Dragon.
Perhaps the two openings aren't all that diversive. I actually prefer the pirc in general, but that is only because I know it very well and it suits my temperment.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulIt was my understanding that the Pirc has been refuted already... You can check this at this webpage:
It is possible to slip into a favorable sicilian dragon from the pirc. Example:
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6. dxc5 Qa5!
Threatening Nxe4 so. . . 7. Bd3 Qxc5 Enter the Dragon.
Perhaps the two openings aren't all that diversive. I actually prefer the pirc in general, but that is only because I know it very well and it suits my temperment.
http://alumni.plymouth.edu/~zrstephen02/DIEPIRCDIE.html
Originally posted by AkashicThe webpage deals with an arcaic cousin of the 150 attack. It is the Spassky variation that goes like e4... d4... Nc3... Nf3... h3... Be3... etc.
I think the 150 attack is the refutation to the Pirc. In my databse I have won 23 of 28 Pirc games! The one's I've drew black was on the defence a long time and barely escaped.
Originally posted by Akashic"The second classical variation in my opinion is not as strong as the 150 attack as it blocks the f pawn to support g4/h4 etc."
The second classical variation in my opinion is not as strong as the 150 attack as it blocks the f pawn to support g4/h4 etc.. and it commits a pawn to h3 where it should be used for a kingside attack.
The Sicilian Kan is my favourite opening.
You are right. But it is so ultra-solid that it drives Pirc players crazy! 🙂 Let me clarify. Given the chance to play the 150 attack I will take it: 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 [The prelude to the 150] Now here is where Black shows what he knows:
A. 4...Bg7 [You know the rest...]
B. 4...c6 [A true Pirc player!]
C. 4...h6 [...]
While A and C are handled with the garden variety 150 attack, option B can be treated with 5.h3 to revert to one of the variations of the classic. 😀 That's enough...
I hate playing against the Kann! I don't know exactly what to do!
Against the Kan I suggest the 6. Bd3 lines combined with 7. c4. It is definetely the hardest line to play against in my opinion.
Against c6 I still play f3. However I dont start lunging kingside pawns until he has castled kingside 🙂. Oh and by the way I play 4. f3 before Be3 to avoid the annoying Ng4.
Contemplating what might be the best opening or defense is like asking what would be better in a fight, a sword or spear. One could argue that the statistics favor one over the other, which has some validity. For instance, perhaps in the old-time gladiator fights the spearman won more often over the swordsman. But that is only a thoeretical advantage to a modern spearman fighting a swordsman. Because, in the end, what matters more is the expertise each combatant has with his respective weapon. If I have more practice with my sword than you have with your spear, I will most likely win.
There's another factor to consider as well: How common is your opening or defense and how likely is it that your typical opponent knows how to deal with it.There again, your practice with an unusual opening and your opponent's unfamiliarity with it may give you an advantage and may trump any theoretical disadvantage. This approach fails, of course, in the face of the truly masterful players who have studied and practiced most all of them. Fortunately, most of us don't run into those types very often. But when playing ordinary mortals, generally the more common the defense or opening, the better you have to know it to be likely to get an advantage over your opponents.
So my philosophy is to pick an opening and a defense that match your personal style and then study them and practice them until you know them like the back of your hand. Then, for variety or to expand your reange of weapons, pick a couple more and do the same.