If White plays the Classical System it is very hard for Black to play for a win.
Is the Pirc a good "win at all costs" system?
Sort:
Jan 13, 2011
0
#43
My megadatabase gives 2500 games with both players fide score over 2500 or better. One example in the european championships of 2001 it was played approx 10 games. Clearly a quality opening.
I appreciate the fact that you guys resurrected this thread, but I decided to play 1...c5 instead of the Pirc months ago haha. Either way, there seems to be a good discussion going on here.
Oh and about the Philidor... Way too passive for me. I like to try to fight and complicate the game as black, rather than giving white a slight but safe and enduring edge. Why play 2...d6 when you can play 2...Nc6? I prefer not to block in my dark squared bishop early.
Well if you want a highly complex opening full of rich play and winning chances you might want to try the French defense. The winawer variation is a very aggressive defense (especially the poison pawn variation). The Winawer was even played by Mikail Botvinnik, who was one of the best players at winning with black.
The only issue is that some lines are highly theoretical and that there are 4 major lines that you need to study.
The mainlines of the closed Ruy involve a lot of maneuvering. Often black's dark squared bishop re-routes to g7 anyway, but it is not always more active there. I am no opening expert but the move 7...d6 in the closed ruy seems more justified than at move two in the philidor because by that point in the game you can tell the position is likely going to be closed, and because black is ahead in development anyway and has time to reroute the dark squared bishop as white is catching up. Besides, black wants to expand on the queenside in those lines so the B on c5 or b6 would get in the way. The Philidor isn't bad, but what I like about 2...Nc6 is that it gives black more options for active play. He doesn't adopt a passive set-up right away, but instead keeps more options open as he waits to see what white will do.
Oh, and 2...Nc6 develops a piece, while 2.d6 doesn't. That's pretty obvious.
Even if everything I said was wrong, and it might be, 2...Nc6 is still a better move, and will always be a better move. Just look at some high level games.
Oh and I am overrated on here incase you didn't notice. A 2200 rating online doesn't mean anything, and it would be a lot lower if so many of my opponents didn't time out!
Cheers.
It sounds pretty much right to me, by the time the Black plays d6 in the closed Ruy the White has already made certain commitments that now make the move justified, or safe is another way of putting it. However, of course there are other options available to Black, including the open Ruy, the Marshall's, and the variations in the closed Ruy where the Black does develop the Bishop outside the pawn chain (such as the Moeller's) are also fairly popular these days.
Fezzik wrote:
Short answer to the title of the thread:
Yes, the Pirc is an excellent win-at-all-costs opening.... for White.
By the way, last year there were a bunch of idiots claiming that anyone over 2400 here must be cheating. They really don't have much of a clue about how chess is played. I'm guessing correspondence ratings here are inflated ~300 points. But that would still make a 2200 rated player a 1900 OTB player, rendering the comment about Nc6 rather strange.
In this case, I would think it is just due to a bit hastily written post.
Also, an Nc6 player doesn't often even wonder why this move would be better than d6, unless some forum debate calls for it.
Hm... what's the recently discovered line in the Panov-Botvinnik ?
Memory isn't as important in the Pirc as in the Sicilian. It is very hard for Black to play for a win, if White plays Classical.
Atos wrote:
Fezzik wrote:
Short answer to the title of the thread:
Yes, the Pirc is an excellent win-at-all-costs opening.... for White.
By the way, last year there were a bunch of idiots claiming that anyone over 2400 here must be cheating. They really don't have much of a clue about how chess is played. I'm guessing correspondence ratings here are inflated ~300 points. But that would still make a 2200 rated player a 1900 OTB player, rendering the comment about Nc6 rather strange.
In this case, I would think it is just due to a bit hastily written post.
Also, an Nc6 player doesn't often even wonder why this move would be better than d6, unless some forum debate calls for it.
Awkward
Feb 27, 2012
0
#52
BigTy wrote:
Hey, so currently I have been playing the open games as black vs 1.e4. I really like playing this way and will probably keep 1...e5 as a cornerstone in my repertoire for the rest of my life. The problem is that a lot of lines lead to early simplification, often resulting in a dead equal position which is tough when you need to win as black.
Are you talking OTB chess here ? Because I think there are good ways to keep plenty of play against weaker opposition in 1...e5 systems. Which are the lines you have problems with ?
I am not a big fan of Roman, but everyone else agrees that is very hard for Black to play for a win against the Classical Pirc. There is an old John Nunn Book The Complete Pirc (1990), that deals with ways for Black to stir up trouble if he has to play for a win. I think the book is out of print, but maybe you can find a second hand one.
Against the accelerated classical 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.h3 O-O 6.Be3 Black's option 6...c6 is not first choice anymore. Vigus in "The Pirc in Black and White" recommends 6...a6 7.a4 Nc6 with good play for Black. Paradigm is the game Frolov-Korotylew, Tomsk 2004. Also interesting is 7.a4 a5. In "Chess Openings for White, Explained" Alburt, Dzinzi and Prelshteyn simply ignore both lines and only cover 6...a6 7.a4 b6.
The Pirc is a good 'win at all costs" system. Unfortunately, those costs include
losing the game.
I have been playing the pirc/modern with excellent results against amateurs but I am trying to make the switch to mainlines with 1...e5 now. I would say that pirc is a good win at all costs system and even in the austrian attack, you can play Bxb5 instead of taking the pawn on e6 and going for the draw. You can let white play exf7, and then you just move the king over to f8 with an equal position. I found, however, that playing the pirc so long has not done much for my chess understanding in general and now that I try to play mainlines I am playing about 500 points lower than what my rating is. So, in conclusion, keep the pirc as a backup weapon :)
Another thing I like about the pirc, is as you said, I can map out a whole bunch of transpositions to different openings like the leningrad dutch. Especially after 1.d4, when black plays d6, white already cannot play 2.c4 without getting into an inferior position or atleast giving away the advantage. White has to play Nf3 after which you get to play a leningrad dutch without worrying about the early traps, a king's indian, or an old indian defence.
I highly disagree from those who say that the Pirc is a "all in" opening. A former Pirc player, I received many draws, and you can check an opening statistic database if you don't believe me.
I'm only playing my second Pirc now but white seems to get a strong kingside attack comparable to a Yugoslav attack but with less danger. Probably more to do with my opponent than the opening though.
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.
The one I don't try at home is the sicilian defence. Because i'm scared