|
< Earlier kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-14-04 |
| ConLaMismaMano: The Pirc defense, like the Caro Kann and French defenses are all anti-e4? |
 |
| Apr-19-04 |
| shr0pshire: I would say that the Pirc can be viewed as a anti-e4 defense. However, I would urge you not to hastily lump the Pirc in with the Caro-Kahn, and the French defenses. The Pirc is a hypermodern defense, because it does not fight for the center -- as in the diagram above black let's white build up a large pawn center. Then black will try to exploit the large pawn center, later on in the game. The Caro-Kahn and the French fight for the center starting on the second move. There are totally different strategies that one uses when playing these openings. That is why I urge caution when lumping the Pirc in with the Caro-Kahn and the French defenses. |
|
| Nov-04-04 |
| themindset: i love playing against the pirc. blacks tricks are all so common that they're predictable, all you have to do is pry open the fianchetto with your f-pawn and then maybe sac the exchange, or a pawn, and watch him squirm. |
|
| Nov-04-04 |
| Griffin: Well said themindset, no-one need ever lose again against the pirc should they be wise enough to deploy your tactics. Why not write a winning book call it "Smashing the pirc with F5!" |
|
Nov-05-04
 |
| An Englishman: Good Evening: themindset, as a former Pirc player, I have to wonder if the opening is that easy to bust--in the database White has only a 38.4-35.8 edge in decisive results, which is excellent for a defense. You might feel quite comfortable against it psychologically, but in my career, I scored 100% playing against the Austrian Attack. My problems consisted of finding adequate play versus 4.Nf3. That was too tough for me to handle, especially with everyone copying Karpov's moves. It isn't easy to play against a World Champion 2-3 times per tournament! |
|
| Nov-05-04 |
| Griffin: Nonsense Dear Boy you should be smashing them to bits! |
|
| Nov-05-04 |
| offramp: I think this is the best way of playing against the Pirc, Karpov vs Timman, 1979. |
|
| Nov-05-04 |
| themindset: <An Englishman> those statistics are not a good indication, i believe, since the pirc is a tricky opening that has a lot of little traps... if you can see the traps, then you have no problems establishing a lasting advantage with white. the clearest indication that this is true? that it is not played by any first-rank GMs. |
|
| Nov-05-04 |
| themindset: PS - with the austrian attack, the statistics are...
White wins 38.4% and Black wins 25.9%
not that they're particularly relevant. |
|
| Nov-16-04 |
| goleafsgo: <themindset>First, the stats are irrelevant, end of story. I think we all should be able to agree on that without having to beat that dead horse any more. Second, the argument about "first-rank" GM's is equally spurious. Who are the "first-rank" GM's? Who gets to decide that? Are we supposed to look at ratings overall or recent tourney performance? Consider this restatement of your premise: Kramnik, Kasparov and Anand beat player X consistantly, therefore lines played by player X are worthless. Or consider changes in repertoire: Kasparov gave up the KID for the most part, is it now junk? These arguments go nowhere. Better players win through better play more than any other reason. Look at the Kramnik-Leko match and the game where Kramnik trotted out the Benoni. He had that game won until an error in the endgame led to a draw...with the Benoni. You know, one of the many defenses that Kasparov has ridiculed as pure crap, which Kasparov himself used to play (not to mention Tal and others). Certainly, none of the top-rated currently GMs use the Pirc with frequency. But some of them still use it at times. If it was just a matter of seeing the "little traps" why would they ever use it? More importantly why would solid GMs like Azmaiparashvili and Timman (not too mention a number of other 2600's and a laundry list of lower rated players? It wasn't that long ago that Timman was one of the top GMs. Some lines are unsound, but the entire Pirc defense is not. How many of these arguments do we have to endure?... the Bayonet attack refutes the KID, the Taimanov refutes the Benoni, 3.Nc3/Nd2 refute the French, 1.d4 refutes everything (wait isn't it 1.e4 ... 1-0). |
|
| Nov-16-04 |
| e4Newman: Hey <goleafsgo> A good friend reminded me the Leafs are still undefeated this year - lol - but seriously, check out my profile |
|
Nov-16-04
|
| An Englishman: Dear themindset: The Albin and the Grob are tricky openings with a lot of traps. The Pirc is not that simple--if it were, Fischer never would have used it in a world championship game. But hey, if you love playing against it, great, keep winning. But I would never consider the Austrian unsound simply because I won every tournament game I played against it, and you should realize that your success vs. the Pirc is also no proof of any alleged unsoundness. |
|
| Nov-27-04 |
| Griffin: Here An Englishman is of course perfectly correct. |
|
| Nov-27-04 |
| csmath: Speaking from a point of view of computer LOL, I would say Pirc is not exactly the type of opening to play against a strong computer. It might be a good weapon against unprepared grandmaster though. |
|
| Nov-27-04 |
| RisingChamp: Even classifying the Albin as "full of traps is not that simple.It is much more than "a few traps".I agree totally with <goleafsgo> all this nonsense about everything being a poor opening is awful.According to the number 1 dunderhead in this category GM Sveshnikov,everything after 1 e4 is a win for white except for the Sicilian Kalashnikov where black has "drawing chances".I wish there were fewer arrogant idiots who think they know everything about the game. |
|
| Jan-06-05 |
| Skylark: Like themindset, I have so far had no problem with playing the Austrian attack; I used to play the 4 Pawns Attack against the King's Indian (before switching to the Samisch just for change) and I found that the two were very similar. I would not consider the Austrian Attack to be a refutation; rather, a decent try against a perfectly sound opening. If it were crap, would it come with high recommendation from the likes of someone like Seirawan; are you saying that he wasn't a first-rank player? I admit I have never used the Pirc in tournament play, but it is reasonable to think that if black has means to transpose into the KID (somewhat) without white having the dangerous c4-pawn, then it can't be that bad. I also have never taken up the KID, which is probably why I don't play the Pirc. But people who play the Pirc, you may find, also use the KIA as white and the Pirc against d4; I mean, going for similar systems is a good idea, isn't it? |
|
| Jan-06-05 |
| Dudley: <Skylark> Going for similar systems would seem to be a good idea but in my opinion the KID is relatively safer for Black to play than the Pirc. Even Fischer didn't play the Pirc routinely, although he used the KID as a staple opening. White has a wide variety of good attacking methods in the Pirc. Seirawan recommended it in his opening book, but even he said that it takes a while to master the ideas as compared to the KID. Curious to know what you play as Black in tournament games. |
|
Jan-06-05
 |
| keypusher: Here is Kasparov's comment on the Pirc, from his notes to the famous Kasparov-Topalov game. Black has just played 1...d6: I was sincerely surprised. Pirc-Ufimtsev Defense is not a usual one for Topalov, and this opening is hardly worth using in the tournaments of the highest category. White has too many opportunities for anybody's liking: one can lead an acute or a positional game, one can vary different ways of developing the initiative. I play the Pirc all the time and I love it, but I think that is the biggest knock on it: it gives white latitude to choose the kind of game he wants. |
|
| Feb-16-05 |
| george IV: I believe the Austrian attack is the best way to fight against the Pirc, at least I find it hard to repeal when I play with Black. What do you think it would be the best continuation for Black in case 4…Bg2 5.Nf3 0-0 6.e5? |
|
| Feb-16-05 |
| e4Newman: In my opinion: 6...dxe5 is OK because the Q-file is now open for black. You may get a queen for queen however if white replies 7.dxe5. Also, watch for white to throw his h-pawn at the fianchettoed bishop on g7 - that's fairly dangerous. The more conservative 6...Ne8 plays OK, I think there's a trap with white attacking the f7-pawn. I'll try to dig up some of my games for more detailed lines. I see this all too often, it's annoying like the Scandinavian or 3...Nge7 in the Lopez. |
|
| Feb-16-05 |
| george IV: Thanks <e4Newman>, you are very kind. I also thought 6…dxe5 was the best reply. But after 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 it looks to me that White has much more space to move his pieces. From an analysis made by Yakov Estrin, I found two possible continuations: 8…Rd8+ 9.Bd3! Nd5 10.Nxd5 Rxd5 11.Ke2 Rd8 12.Be4 (Minev-Stefanov, 1966) 8…Ng4 9.Ke1 Nc6 10.Bb5! f6 (10…Nb4 11.Ba4) 11.h3 Nh6 12.Nd5! (Estrin-Kotkov, 1971) with better perspectives for White in both cases. |
|
| Feb-16-05 |
| george IV: I just noticed that there are only 68 games in the database with 6.e5, while everybody plays instead 6.Bd3 (468 games) or 6.Be3 (115 games). So, my question is: where is the weakness of 6.e5 if nobody plays it?? |
|
| Feb-16-05 |
| ionnn: The main line here is 6 ... Nfd7 7 h4 c5 8 h5 cxd4 9 Qxd4 dxe5 10 Qf2 e4! and black have a good position (=/  ). |
|
| Feb-16-05 |
| e4Newman: It's true that black is behind in development, but in the line <8…Ng4 9.Ke1 Nc6 10.Bb5! f6 (10…Nb4 11.Ba4) 11.h3 Nh6 12.Nd5! (Estrin-Kotkov, 1971)> doesn't 9...Rd8 hold the d-file? <ionnn> is <6 ... Nfd7 7 h4 c5 8 h5 cxd4 9 Qxd4 dxe5 10 Qf2 e4!> the current main line. I don't know that much about theory on this one, I have an old magazine with horrible annotation. It reads, "9.hxg6 dxc3 10.gxf7+ Rxf7 this is an interesting position where 11.e6, Bc4 or Ng5?! may follow." Can't see myself using that line as white. |
|
| Feb-16-05 |
| ionnn: <e4Newman> Well 9 hxg6 dxc3 10 gxf7+ Rxf7 and now :
* 11 Cg5?! ( Tisdall : "This violent move seems to have a had a brief and ignominious history as far as I can determine. The most testing line, I believe, is 11.Bc4." ) cxb2 12 Bxb2 (12 Bc4 have been try but doesn't work) Qa5+ 13 c3 Nxe5! 14 Qb3 Qc5 15 Be2 Qe3!  (Bronstein,D - Conquest,S in Reykjavk 1996)*11 e6?! cxb2 12 Bxb2 Bxb2 and i can't see something good for white And so the 'main' line :
* 11 Fc4 e6 12 Ng5 Nf8! 13 Nxf7 Kxf7 14 Qh5+ Kg8 and white doesn't have enough compensation So i think 9 hxg6 deserves a ?! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
