white has to think twice about playing f3 in the owen's and thats not seen in any of the critical lines.
If I recall correctly from Soltis (1977) Defense P-QN3 , Ken Regan answered with 3 f3 with 3... d5 !?. I could only find one game where 3 f3 was played against me. It's only blitz, apologies if it has no theoretical value.
Here is the Regan game.
this is a great line in the Owens defense
I don't play these defenses ,all I know about them is I do quite well against them.I am a 1.e4 player.
I have during my chess time, played both and here is my take in it (although I have left both openings now).
The main difference is that Owens defence is generally more quiet and positional, while the modern may not be attacking in nature, but it leads to tactical positions.
Owens defence can in some variations resemble the french.
DONT make the mistake of comparing the modern with the kings indian defence however! The modern is much more provocative than the kings indian.
In the pirc black force white to play Nc3 - blocking his c-pawn giving him development in exchange for a smaller center than can more easily be opened up for blacks bishop. In the Kings indian, the center is typically closed, and it is more common than not to see black get a huge attack on white who is playing on the queenside. The openings do NOT transpose, and they lead to completely different types of games.
While you cannot compare the pirc to the kings indian, you CAN compare owens defence to the queens indian since the middlegame plans are usually the same.
The openings differ a lot in theory as well. The pirc is much more theory heavy and there are really many variations for white, where if you dont know your stuff. You will have a lost position on move 5 - And the moves are not too intuitive either.
I would say that practically, under titled level chess - most players will do way better with Owens because of three reasons:
1. The amount of theory and trappy variations for white.
2. e4 players are not too familiar with the Owens defence compared to the pirc (most of us only know that we should not defend the e-pawn with the b1 knight and thats it).
3. It can be considered a system opening that you can play against anything. Sometimes you will get an Owens defence, sometimes a queens indian, and sometimes you can transpose into a hedgehog or hippo. Choosing the pirc means NO transposition possibilities which makes it more difficult to fit in your opening repertoire.
I have during my chess time, played both and here is my take in it (although I have left both openings now).
The main difference is that Owens defence is generally more quiet and positional, while the modern may not be attacking in nature, but it leads to tactical positions.
Owens defence can in some variations resemble the french.
DONT make the mistake of comparing the modern with the kings indian defence however! The modern is much more provocative than the kings indian.
In the pirc black force white to play Nc3 - blocking his c-pawn giving him development in exchange for a smaller center than can more easily be opened up for blacks bishop. In the Kings indian, the center is typically closed, and it is more common than not to see black get a huge attack on white who is playing on the queenside. The openings do NOT transpose, and they lead to completely different types of games.
While you cannot compare the pirc to the kings indian, you CAN compare owens defence to the queens indian since the middlegame plans are usually the same.
The openings differ a lot in theory as well. The pirc is much more theory heavy and there are really many variations for white, where if you dont know your stuff. You will have a lost position on move 5 - And the moves are not too intuitive either.
I would say that practically, under titled level chess - most players will do way better with Owens because of three reasons:
1. The amount of theory and trappy variations for white.
2. e4 players are not too familiar with the Owens defence compared to the pirc (most of us only know that we should not defend the e-pawn with the b1 knight and thats it).
3. It can be considered a system opening that you can play against anything. Sometimes you will get an Owens defence, sometimes a queens indian, and sometimes you can transpose into a hedgehog or hippo. Choosing the pirc means NO transposition possibilities which makes it more difficult to fit in your opening repertoire.
You could also defend with Bd3 or Nd2. But white is at no particular disadvantage from being unable to play c4. In other openings it can be useful for taking on d5 and diminishing black's center, but with the modern - what center? It also uses a tempo and creates weaknesses, especially against a fianchetto bishop going down that side. In the old Benoni mainline white omits c4 and instead just plays Nc3, c4 isn't even a developing move according to traditional chess development theory.
You could also defend with Bd3 or Nd2. But white is at no particular disadvantage from being unable to play c4. In other openings it can be useful for taking on d5 and diminishing black's center, but with the modern - what center? It also uses a tempo and creates weaknesses, especially against a fianchetto bishop going down that side. In the old Benoni mainline white omits c4 and instead just plays Nc3, c4 isn't even a developing move according to traditional chess development theory.
If white plats Bd3 or Nd2 instead of 3.Nc3 in the pirc, black goes e5 and has a better version of the philidor. Although white may aim for an advantage here, I would see this as a big win for the pirc.
If it seemed like I claimed that white is worse because he cannot go c4 I expressed myself poorly. This is not what I meant.
What I meant was because white gets development instead of the big center with c4, the opening usually provoce a big attack for white. And if not, its leading to more tactical piece play.
I don’t often play them but I kinda like Owen’s defence (I haven’t played the modern before 🤪)