Modern Defence: Gurgenidze or Main Line?

I'm reading up on some modern defence theory and from what I understand the Gurgenidze (1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6) tends to give more closed strategical positions while the main line modern defence (1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6) seems to be able to give more open games. I have experimented with both and I'm not sure what to aim for here. I am an e4 player as white but I thought it might be good for me to play the gurgenidze line as black so I can train closed positions when I play as black.

Are both lines perfectly balanced and the only difference is closed vs open like the difference betwen 1. e4 and 1. d4 or is there more according to you? Would like to hear some thoughts about this.

4. ... a6 is the main line and yes I think it looks good aswell. It feels pretty natural to play unlike the gurgenidze.

Anyone else know both the lines that can shed more light over this? :-)

I play the Pirc and occasionally the Modern. Year ago I played the Gurgenidze and the very closed nature of the position was tricky. Also one small error by Black and White got a overwhelming position. I like the Pirc/Modern with normal development usually with ...c5 and Qa5 where Black gets a Dragon like position

 I don't play the pirc because of the 150 attack when white trades dark sq bishops on h6 by forming a battery with his queen on d2. As long as you keep the knight on g8 he can't do that. I use the attack as white myself and it is mostly devastating. So I try to play the modern.

I think I'm going to put more effort into the Gurgenidze if you say it is a very sharp position. I like decisive positions where small mistakes makes one side fall. At the same time it gives me a chance to improve on my positional play. Positional play is not much experienced in my 1 e4 openings so this might be good for me. Also this might be the reason why I'm not doing as well with the Gurgenidze right now because of my defective positional play.

But you think the Gurgenidze, once learned properly is a good solid line? I assuming it is quite weird for white to meet also right?

It's a bit of an odd question. When trying to figure out which openings to play, you should first and foremost look at the sort of positions you would like to see arise, then which openings would give a decent chance of getting them.

Then you'd perhaps compare some closed openings (if you want that -- but what does that mean exactly, closed?) to see which you liked best.

So, if you already think they lead to a different type of game, what does it matter whether they're "balanced"?

Yes, balanced is a wrong word. What I meant is: Is the Gurgenidze a disandvantagous line for black compared to the main line modern defence or is it just a matter of taste. Gurgendize leads often to closed pawn centers.

I personally do not prefer positions that arise through the Gurgenidze lines but isn't that a reason why to pick it up? So I can get better at it? Everyone needs to train both tactics and strategy right? Or whats your thought about that? Do you think a pure tactical player can avoid strategies that arise more often in closed games?

I'm not familiar enough with the Gurgenidze to answer the first question. Also, I don't think it's very relevant unless you're 2300 or better. Otherwise, most of the time your opponents won't know the theory, let alone reach a theoretical advantage on move 20 that they also know how to exploit (with some exceptions like the Najdorf, where there exist 1600ish Najdorf nerds that know all the theory. Play something like 3.Bb5+ and they're demoralized).

Yes, everybody needs to train both tactics and strategy, there is no such thing as a "pure tactical player". Chess is a very tactical game, there are almost always relevant tactics in a position.

I think you should play openings that you enjoy and that you understand (where you have an idea of what both sides are trying to accomplish, strategically), or that you find interesting. If you don't like the positions but play them because that'll improve your chess in some way, I don't think that will work.

Play through a lot of master games (annotated if possible, but otherwise just a lot of games), and cast your net wide so you get exposed to a lot of different openings. In actual games, play the ones that you liked when you saw them. No need to do more than that until the 2000s, as long as you do your tactics training so you can see traps coming (the really devilish opening traps are actually pretty rare).

So in short I'd say play both and see which you like better.

I like the Gurgenidze because there isn't a whole lot of theory and most players don't know how to counter it. Especially at the club level, white players will get antsy and try to open the position. Ultimately, this leads to self-destruction. If black is patient and willing to play a little bit cramped for a while, then it is great.