pirc defence ?

I  have always thought pirc defence was e4 d6.

and wiki is also saying pirc defence is e4 d6 I have book by Bent Larsen and he writes about the pirc being e4 d6.

some call(even GM) e4 g6 the pirc defence but wiki calls it something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Defense

can someone help me if wiki is correct.

I'm pretty sure 1. e4 d6 is the Pirc. What GM was calling it the 1. ...g6 the Pirc

It's really too early to be called a Pirc after 1. e4 d6, as it could transpose into something like a Philidor after 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5.  I always thought the Pirc was 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6

Both 1.e4 g6 and 1.e4 d6 can turn into a Pirc. Rule of thumb: it's a Pirc when ...g6, ...d6 and an early Nf6 combine. If Nf6 is not played or delayed, it's a Modern.

1. e4-d6 is NOT the pirc, but of course it can become the pirc later. Pirc defense: 

1. e4-g6 is the Modern defense, which differs from the pirc in that in the modern black doesn't play an early Nf6 and often he won't develop the knight to f6.

GM Simon Williams

the video with http://www.chess.com/video/player/spicy-gambits-the-monkeys-bum?ncc=1#first_new_comment

maybe I misunderstood something.

However Roman has a video with e4 d6.

I think this why I misunderstood I guess. I always thought e4 d6 was the pirc like e4 e6 is the french. I never considered pirc to be a series of moves.

That's the way it is with most openings.  I have heard people call 1. e6 the French even when white starts with d4 followed by c4.  At that point it would be a semi slav or a QGD after black plays d5.

I encountered the same discrepency recently when 365chess called the following series of moves the Pirc, before ...g6 was even played...

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 {Pirc Defense, per 365chess.com.}

http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=6&n=70&ms=e4.d6.d4.Nf6.Nc3

MCO-10 calls it the Pirc(-Robatsch) even sooner, before even 3. Nc3!

----------

(p. 348)
      PIRC-ROBATSCH DEFENCE
   (A. 1 P-Q4 (or P-K4), P-Q3 (or P-KN3); 2 P-K4, N-KB3.
   B. 1 P-K4 (or P-Q4), P-KN3; 2 P-Q4 (P-K4), B-N2.)

WHAT'S in a name? This system has been known variously as the
Pirc, Ufimstev, and Yugoslav. Along came Robatsch to stir the pot
by demonstrating that 1 ... P-KN3 is an all-purpose move which
generally serves much the same end. Should either author be offended
by our hybrid compromise, let each be chastened by the gentle reminder
that 1 P-K4, P-Q3; 2 P-Q4, N-KB3; 3 N-QB3, P-KN3;
4 P-B4, B-N2; 5 N-B3, O-O--which is as modern as you can
get--is a game Weiss-Paulsen, Nurnberg 1883. The more things
change, the more they stay the same.
   The Pirc is not a fighting defence. It is fluid and slippery, with the
object of closing the game and slowly equalizing whether White opens
1 P-Q4 or 1 P-K4.
Remarkably, the Robatsch
can transpose not only
into the King's Indian
(by force, if White
chooses), but into the
accelerated fianchetto of
the Sicilian: 1 P-K4,
P-KN3; 2 P-Q4,
B-N2; 3 N-QB3,
P-QB4; 4 N-B3 (4
P-Q5 see col. 11, note (a)), PxP; 5 NxP, N-QB3; etc.
   This defence has already drawn converts as Averbakh, Benko,
Botvinnik, Kotov, Petrosyan, Bronstein, and Reshevsky. The Pirc proper
is characterized by the order 1 ... P-Q3 and 2 ... N-KB3. [sic] The
Robatsch proper by 1 ... P-KN3 and 2 ... B-N2 (and dealt
with in cols. 16-20). Delaying the development of the King's Knight
gives White more options since after 1 P-K4, P-Q3; 2 P-Q4,
N-KB3 the attack on his King's pawn already poses the decision of
how best to defend it. 3 B-Q3 is too committal. 3 P-B3 can lead
to the Samisch Variation of the King's Indian, but perhaps White
does not intend to be forced there against his will. 3 N-QB3 blocks
the Queen's Bishop's pawn and thus rules out the strict transposition
into the King's Indian which is characterized by an early P-QB4.
The question is, has White saved a tempo and strengthened his position
by omitting P-QB4, or has he forfeited the possibility of establishing
a permanent beach-head in the centre?
(p. 349)
   A critical position arises on Whites [sic] fourth move after 1 P-Q4,
P-Q3; 2 P-K4, N-KB3; 3 N-QB3, P-KN3. His problem
is compounded by the multiplicity of seemingly attractive systems.
   4 B-N5 with the idea of rapidly castling Queen's side is the motif
of col. 1. Combining this idea with 4 P-B4 and pressing for P-K5 is
col. 2. In neither case does White get the worst of it, nor can he demon-
strate any palpable plus.
   4 P-B4 combined with a rapid P-K5 (col. 3) offers some promise,
the main line exemplified by the positional approach of cols. 7 and 8.

Evans, Larry, and Walter Korn. 1965. Modern Chess Openings, 10th Edition. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation.

----------

Similar discrepencies occur in other openings like the Reti Opening (some say it's 1. Nf3, others say 1. Nf3 d5), and probably Alekhine Defense also (does it require 2. e5? or just 1...Nf6?).

How would playing ...g6 avoid the Austrian Attack?

One of those extra options also appear to be 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.f4 d5

Some discussion on this system in this post as well and some nice ideas presented.

 http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/gurgenidze-system-of-the-caro-kann

in todays video Roman called it the pirc defence on move 1 http://www.chess.com/video/player/right-idea-wrong-execution-member-analysis

and g6 wasn't played.