What are the/your general thoughts on the Pirc defense? I'm considering playing it, since Yasser Seirawan recommends it in his 'Winning Chess Openings" book. I'd like to hear from Pirc players, but am just as willing to listen to non-Pirc players thoughts on the defense.
Thanks for your attention.
Originally posted by pinkthunderVery very complex to play. I don't like some of Seirawan's suggestions, where you have to sac significantly to get some sort of counterplay. Plus I find it is easy for White to just play an early h3 and push Black up against the wall all too easily.
What are the/your general thoughts on the Pirc defense? I'm considering playing it, since Yasser Seirawan recommends it in his 'Winning Chess Openings" book. I'd like to hear from Pirc players, but am just as willing to listen to non-Pirc players thoughts on the defense.
Thanks for your attention.
Originally posted by pinkthunderAt our level, it is a sound defense. A little too passive for me, but definatly playable. I have tried many different setups against it and it can be frusturating. My best success has come with the Chinese (?) attack against the pirc (early g2-g4-g5). I also very much enjoy playing the Short attack against the Pirc.
What are the/your general thoughts on the Pirc defense? I'm considering playing it, since Yasser Seirawan recommends it in his 'Winning Chess Openings" book. I'd like to hear from Pirc players, but am just as willing to listen to non-Pirc players thoughts on the defense.
Thanks for your attention.
Originally posted by zebanoHow does it compare to the French? Does it offer counterattacking chances like the French?
At our level, it is a sound defense. A little too passive for me, but definatly playable. I have tried many different setups against it and it can be frusturating. My best success has come with the Chinese (?) attack against the pirc (early g2-g4-g5). I also very much enjoy playing the Short attack against the Pirc.
As an ex-pirc player, I can ceratinly can't back it. However, it is a sound opening, though it can get very complicated especially against higher rated players. Most gains are subtle--space, piece placement, etc--and there are few oppertunities to directly attack the king. I played it for years and studied it like a madman, but I never got any better. When I dropped it and began just playing "mirror image" first moves for black and e4 as white my rating shot up a solid 200 points. Could be a coincidence. Or it could be that we should spend less time thinking about prefab openings and actually take the time allowed (which is considerable on this site) and actually look at the board. I know it's novel, but give it a try. You game will improve.
No game is won in a well played opening of any stripe.
Originally posted by zebanoIt's sound enough at all levels. There's GMs still playing it.
At our level, it is a sound defense. A little too passive for me, but definatly playable. I have tried many different setups against it and it can be frusturating. My best success has come with the Chinese (?) attack against the pirc (early g2-g4-g5). I also very much enjoy playing the Short attack against the Pirc.
In my opinion the Pirc is a difficult defence to master. The ideas in the French defence are easier to understand and you'll get better success straight away with the French, whereas with the Pirc you will have many painful and quick losses before you start to get a feel for when you need to play which plan.
If you have to time to study and memorise lines, then the Sicilian is probably the best defence of all. I've tried it on and off over the years with reasonable success. I wouldn't play the Dragon though as it is easy for White to overwhelm it if Black doesn't know the very sharp book lines very well.
Lots of beginners and club players like the Centre Counter (1.e4 d5), but I find it too boring. White seems to get a small edge almost every game.
The Caro Cann has a reputation for being drawish. It's the one defence I have never tried to play as I've often been in the position of playing people considerably lower graded than me throughout my chess career and usually have to play for a win with Black as well as White.
Playing 1....e5 to 1.e4 is, I believe, the worst idea of all. You have to know how to respond to at least half a dozen dangerous White openings, all of which your opponent is likely to know better.
Kasparov surprised Seirawan in a match, according to wikipedia:
"An unusual but quite reasonable deviation for White is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3. Former world champion Garry Kasparov once surprised American Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan with this move. After 3...g6 4.c4, an unhappy Seirawan found himself defending the King's Indian Defense for the first time in his life. "
I wonder if that has anything to do with him proving its unsound? Yaz was/is a big proponent of the Pirc.
Originally posted by exigentskyKasparov may not think much of it, but he has not proven it is refuted. The only refuted opening is the Latvian Gambit. Black can still draw with the Latvian Gambit with very accurate play?
I don't think the Pirc was actually ever proven to be unsound by Kasparov or anyone else.