Pirc Defense vs French Defense

French > Pirc

French easily. After 1.e4, White wants to build a big center. If he can play e4 and d4 without interference, White is better as he controls c5, d5, e5, and f5.

Black must eliminate the big Center. There are 2 ways to do that.

Avoid d4 - 1...e5 and 1...c5, in both cases, capturing if 2.d4, leaving White with just 1 center pawn.

Attack the unprotected e4 - 1...c6 or 1...e6 followed by 2...d5, forcing White to do something. He can trade on d5, removing a central pawn, advance e5, weakening the pawn structure and gaining control of the light squares in the center (White now has no control of e4, d5, or f5), or protect, after which you can take on e4, eliminating a center pawn, or attack e4 again with Nf6 or pin the Knight on c3 in specifically the French to entice e5 out of White.

The Pirc allows White to maintain pawns on e4 and d4.

Statistics mean nothing as you need 30 games to be statistically relevant, and very few players have played the Black side of both openings 30 times each. Doubt I have played 1...d6 30 times. 1...e6 in the thousands.

To answer the previous post, I have played 1...d6 against 1.e4 78 times (vs thousands of 1...e6), but only 1 Pirc. 52 of those 78 games were the Pribyl, and 25 did not feature 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3.

That 1 Pitc, White won.

They're very different openings from what I've seen, where the french is about immediately fighting for the centre, and the pirc is more about having a long-term kingside attack; which one is objectively better matters less than which one suits your playstyle. At 1300 the french is often more intuitive since you usually have a very clear plan, but at higher levels they're both good openings. Neither is all that challenging to a seasoned e4 player compared to e5 or c5, but they're both very reputable. They're both on the decline in terms of how many people play them though, so people might not have as much of a plan in them as well. Hope this helps! but note I'm a caro/d4 player myself, so this knowledge is from osmosis.

The french is objectively better, and I do slightly better with it.

Still, I enjoy playing pirc/modern much more and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

pirc is a hard defense to play. Agaisnt anyone sub 2000, the be3 qd2 f3 0-0-0 line is deadly as getting decent positions from that requires both theory and good defensive intuition weaker players usually lack. but even more positional lines like the g3 system can leave black with narrow corridors for counterplay. french is easier by comparison ,even if the positions can sometimes get crooked, blacks counterplay is rarely elusive .

the pirc does have any upside over the french though, if black is going for a must win asymmetrical game , the pirc may be the better option esp if you dont know which version of the french defense lines white plays ahead of times. The french is a great counter-attacking opening but one of its problems is the exchange variation. IF white wants a boring fairly symmetrical game, he can get it easily.

@7

"but one of its problems is the exchange variation"
++ The exchange variation is not as harmless as people think.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2692010

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2693492

"Agaisnt anyone sub 2000, the be3 qd2 f3 0-0-0 line is deadly" ++ Above 2000 too.

Czech Pirc is best for me. In virtually every e4 game I‘ll obtain a nice position.

You can stir up everything, recent game of mine:

If you are going to play the main variations of pirc, then I would strongly advice you rather go for the french because it is much easier to learn and play.

There are so many sharp variations against the pirc that white can choose from, that you really need to be booked up against everything to not get a loosing position on move 6.

For example, check out this rather unknown line where every move is forced if black want to achieve equality:

If you go for the steinitz french there are much easier strategies to understand and you can start playing it in a few days.