"is the pirc a good 'win at all costs' system?"
in short, no (since you are specifically referring to playing as black against 1. e4).
playing the sicilian would be my suggestion. definitely has a good track record for black.
I'm pretty sure you can get a Pirc set-up, out of most White openings, not just 1.e4.
i'd still suggest sicilian since OP is speaking of playing against 1. e4 (isn't he?)
Very good thread over in chesspub about the Franco-Benoni.
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1190012679/0
Final analysis pending, but seems to be a dubious choice for a must win situation. Obviously, surprise value will carry a ton more value in club level games than in the typical level of play and analysis over there, so YMMV.
At 2800 level though, it would probably be pretty hard to get a win with black, but even at early master level maybe openings like the ck can win a decent amount of the time.
In the last wc match, only one game was won with black.
At 2800 level though, it would probably be pretty hard to get a win with black, but even at early master level maybe openings like the ck can win a decent amount of the time.
In the last wc match, only one game was won with black.
Indeed, and in that game Topalov blundered horribly. Perhaps I am worrying about this a bit too much, since at club level mistakes usually decide the game, not the opening. Still, having a back-up opening for situations where I think my opponent will try to draw, or even just for fun, lol, appeals to me. Here are some choices I am thinking of, perhaps you guys should vote ahahaa:
1.Learn some sharp and risky lines after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, although against some openings this may not be possible without really comprimising my position (giuco pianissimo, for example).
2.Re-learn the Najdorf and the anti-sicilians with it. This wouldn't be as tough as you might think because I have played this opening a lot in the past. I would have to worry about getting into a theoretical battle against someone weaker though as this opening is hugely popular.
3.Learn the Kan and some new anti-sicilians with it, to suit the e6/a6 pawn formation. This does sound appealing but it would take time to get used to the Kan structure, as it is very different from the Najdorf.
4.Play the Pirc. This is starting to look less appealing as white has many ways to try to crush you. Although many of my opponents would probably lack prep against it.
5.Play something slightly offbeat like the alekhine's or modern, but even here there is a lot to learn, and well.... I don't want to handicapp myself right out of the opening.
I don't want to bother with the Franco-Benoni as I don't play any benoni's against 1.d4, and if I did I would go back to playing the modern benoni like I used to, but here a transposition to that looks unlikely.
I mean 2000 level is no joke, but even still I think those games are filled with tactical and positional mistakes, just not as frequent or significant as at lower levels. Although at the same time I've noticed when I have played against experts as black, if I pick a solid opening a lot of times I just defend the whole game. But that's probably partly because I'm simply not quite expert level yet.
If you're looking for something that is solid but will give you good chances against someone lower rated than you, why not try a Qd6 Scandinavian?
I can't say how it stands from a 'Must-win' scenario, but vs someone weaker it might be just odd enough to throw them off their game :D
That being said, if you abhor the centre counter, I toss my vote in for the Kan. It's awesome.
I have Vigus' excellent Pirc book, which covers the whole opening for both sides, so I won't be needing Alburt's book. I agree that the modern is also a good choice, and indeed I have had some trouble as white against the a6/b5/Bb7 lines, but I like the Pirc better and will stick to it.
In the first diagram I can see black is fine. What I meant was what should black do when white plays 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 and now 3.Bd3 instead of 3.Nc3. This avoids the Pirc, which officially starts after 3.Nc3 g6. So should black play 3...g6 anyway? I find that white has a certain flexibility in his position which is quite annoying because he keeps the options of playing both c3, reinforcing the centre, and f4 going for an Austrian type of attack, open. As far as I know black's main counterplay is against the d4 square, but with c3 played this seems less effective. Any thoughts on how black should play?
James Vigus book on the Pirc is good indeed. What do you guys think of John Nunn's "The Complete Pirc"? Is it also good?
I am not a big fan of the Scandi. Losing time by bringing the queen out early combined with less control of the centre doesn't sit well with me.
The Kan is reasonable, but I don't like the fact that black often has to play a hedgehog set-up. A sit and wait strategy isn't really how I like to play, especially in a must win scenario.
So I will probably take up the Najdorf again. I played it for a year or so without knowing that much theory and my results were ok, much better than when I was playing the Sveshnikov infact. The positions just feel natural to me, I tend to have a good feel for where the pieces belong, and I like the counterplay I get on the queenside in most lines. Of course there is a lot of theory, but I am familiar with some of it already, and I have lots of time to learn.
I may branch out to the Dragadorf someday as well, as it is a new and interesting system.
I like the Pirc, and am slowly beginning to play decently (for me) with it. I like letting white build a center, and then attack it. Most white players my level know that they should build a center, but then don't know how to press the advantage.
Anyway, if you are even mildly interested in the Pirc, check this group out.
http://www.chess.com/groups/home/pirc-defense-group
If you like the Nadjorf and wish to limit the theory you'll have to keep up with, try the backdoor approach with the O'Kelly 2...a6. Depending upon what White does, you can opt to transpose into a Nadjorf, Kan, or Scheviningen, or not.
Again, though, if you are most concerned with the weaker players, mainline Nadjorf is probably best. The odds are none of them will know it as well as you do - your biggest problem will be that many of them will avoid the Open lines because they know they don't know the main lines. So you will need to spend some time on those, too.
Indeed, I will face a lot of anti-sicilians, especially at the local club. Fortunately, I have already played many games on the black side of openings such as the Morra and the Closed, so brushing up and maybe learning some new lines here and there shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I would rather avoid the O'kelly because white doesn't have to play an open sicilian against it, and infact shouldn't, because black will get an improved Sveshnikov (the knight can't go to b5). Instead he can get a good Alapin set-up against it or a Maroczy bind with 3.c4, which I would prefer to avoid. Besides, playing 2...a6 just feels wrong to me in principle.
Regardless of what opening you choose, playing someone who considers a draw a win will be a challenge.
The way I would approach the issue is
How flexible is my opening? Can I deviate to avoid drawing lines without being just worse? If you are 2000 strength then you are talking about having to beat 1700 players. So you are talking about someone who doesnt fall for 2 movers- probably your advantage is middle game strategy and endgames (just a guess)
so you need one of these trumps
1) An openings system that leads to an imbalanced endgame - you should have better chances winning a knight vs bishop endgame than trying to trap out some 1700 in the latest variation of the Bg5 Najdorf.
2) A system that creates large calculative complications - you should be better at calculating than a 1700 so systems with pawn races, constant threat of pawn breaks, mobile center that sort of thing...
3) a system that requires the 1700 to know structure and piece placement instead of a series of forced moves (this is particularly effective vs scholastic players as they tend to be booked up without a ton of understanding)
4) Any theoretical system you choose will have some sort of anti system that club players employ to avoid theory- so odds are you need to be better at beating the anti system than your main choice.
Realistically though, you should just stick to what you play best- I play the Accelerated Dragon which is filled with drawish forced lines and the Maroczy and I have scored something lik 85% vs 1700s this year..
You could also branch out after 1.e4 e5. There are fianchetto systems with g6, for example, that will definitely throw off the lower-rated booked up players and unbalance the position. See http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2009/03/repertoire-renovations.html
Allow me to also suggest the Philidor as a way to avoid early piece exchanges and preserve tension in the position. Black gets a very flexible pawn formation usually with pawns on e5, d6, c6. Kingside fianchetto is possible as played by Bent Larsen. The QN maneuver Nbd7-f8-g6 is common. GMs Bologan and Christian Bauer have published on this opening.
That way you get a "play-to-win" system as Black within 1...e5 without taking on a whole new opening like a Sicilian, when the theoretical overhead defeats the purpose...
I think that, if I really learned how to play the Pirc from both sides, I would be close to knowing how to play chess.
I think that, if I really learned how to play the Pirc, I would be close to knowing how to play chess.
LOL! I think the opposite. I think learning how to play the Pirc would require me to temporarily FORGET how to play chess. I mean why are we giving White all that space in the center and why are we giving White complete and total flexibility to arrange his center pawns in any number of various central pawn formations (all of which are dangerous)?? You have to wonder why Pirc is not played by SuperGM's. You also have to wonder why it never occurred to Morphy, Tarrasch, Capablanca, etc to play in such a way. Because Pirc is odd, counterintuitive, and ultimately not fully correct. But i understand it is very attractive to club players for some reason.
I mean why are we giving White all that space in the center and why are we giving White complete and total flexibility to arrange his center pawns in any number of various central pawn formations (all of which are dangerous)??
The hypermodern school of chess thought it would be a good idea to give white space, and allow white many early pawn advances. It could be dangerous
The hypermodern school of chess thought it would be a good idea to give white space, and allow white many early pawn advances. It could be dangerous
True. I apologize for being kind of a jerk to Mr. Atos, who made an excellent point about learning Pirc for Black and for White since the Pirc amplifies imbalances to the maximum. But still i think Pirc is in the category of "Don't Try This At Home" openings. My 2 cents, peace out.
"is the pirc a good 'win at all costs' system?"
in short, no (since you are specifically referring to playing as black against 1. e4).
playing the sicilian would be my suggestion. definitely has a good track record for black.
I'm pretty sure you can get a Pirc set-up, out of most White openings, not just 1.e4.