So the Silcian Defense scores extremely well against 1. e4 and is well-respected by GMs around the world. However, the Pirc Defense only gets marginal praise, although GMs still respect it as an overall solid defense to 1. e4. The Pirc looks a lot like the Dragon and Modern Sicilian, so why doesn't the Pirc get more love from GMs both verbally and in terms of overall use?

First off, I'm not a master - I'm only 1500 - but the Pirc has been my primary opening for the last year for 1.e4 - 

I must admit that the Sicilian feels much more like a counterattack then a defense but with very few exceptions, the structures feel similiar and I even pointed this out in a chessvideo.tv video I did.  The Pirc feels more like a hypermodern defense then something that offers equal attacking chances.

I always thought much of the Pirc feels more forced as well whereas the Sicilian has some respected sidelines that can take you out of Pirc structures - (c3 or closed Sicilian)

whiskeytown

Thanks for your thoughts :)

I think the main difference at the professional level, is that if you play the Pirc, then white can play a risk-free game and try to grind out a win with technical means without risking much.

It's much more difficult against the Sicilian defence, when white must grant black some counterplay to get decent winning chances.

In a nutshell, Sicilian gives greater fighting chances and more winning chances to black.

pirc is a more solid game, and you may not see it around here so much because NO ONE on chess.com likes a solid game.  The Sicilian may give more winning chances, but it also gives losing chances.