Talk:Pirc Defence

Pirc players?

Do we have any Pirc players listening?

I "corrected" the redir from Robatsch Defense from Modern Defence to Pirc Defence, but I realize now that may have been a mistake. It seems that Robatsch and Ufimtsev may actually belong with Modern instead of Pirc. I had just created a bunch of redirects to Pirc Defence from Robatsch Defence, Ufimtsev Defence, and Ufimtsev Defense when I realized this may be an error. If so, those redirects should be changed and the Modern Defence page probably needs to mention Robatsch and Ufimtsev. Also, what about the Pirc-Robatsch? Quale 06:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the Robatsch Defense was a seperate defense from the Pirc. Since it is reached after e4 g6 versus the Pirc which is reached e4 d6 d4 nf6? I realize that they often end up similar but I don't think it should redirect here. Falphin 18:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a Pirc player, but back in my day (the days of MCO-10), the two were grouped together as Pirc-Robatsch. But they are considered seperately now. Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncommon that you can reach lines of another opening than the one you started with. E.g., there are positions in the Pirc defence that can also result from the Sicilian defence. (Pirc player here. :)) Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, is no-one paying attention to this? In case the overload of names in the first paragraph is confusing, I'll spell it out simply. Someone who has the power to do so needs to make Robatsch Defence a redirect to the page Modern Defence and not to here. 91.107.182.39 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Bubba73 (talk), 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

chessgames.com

some of these openings seem to have links, on the main picture, to chess games.com, I was gonna delete it as it seem to just be advertising but is there some relevant reason for it being there? Broonsparrow (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed by the Chess Wikiproject (WP:CHESS) and we decided to allow links to ChessGames.com. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Nc3?

Why does white have to play Nc3? Why isn't Bd3 covered? GrandMattster 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bd3 isn't a great move. The bishop is better placed on e2, not on d3 where its movement is blocked by its side's own pawn. 91.107.166.123 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the previous note, as you don't know where the bishop should be placed.

The reason that Bd3 is not covered in most places (It seems like a good choice, preparing c3, Nbd2, f4 with a strong center), is that Black immediately equalizes after ...e5! 4. c3 d5!, usually leading to a drawish endgame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.217.166 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Played frequently in the 1850's

I have virtually no knowledge off chess, but I came upon this article: a-data-driven-exploration-of-the-evolution-of-chess-popularity-of-openings. It states the following:

I wanted to point out the short-lived spike in popularity of the Pirc Defence in the 1850s. Though the Pirc Defence is typically thought of as a relatively new opening, Moheschunder Bannerjee used this opening almost exclusively in his 50+ games against John Cochrane, winning 40% of the games (far above his overall 24% win rate as Black).

Perhaps this is something for the article?

Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, could definitely incorporate some of this into the article. A look at his profile on chessgames (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=85637) shows that Bannerjee didn't play this opening "almost exclusively", but there are certainly many instances of it, including recognised modern lines like the "Austrian Attack" and the "Classical Variation". One explanation for this is that Indian players were used to playing a version of the game where the pawn only moves one square; this would tend to encourage the fianchetto development of the bishop. While they adapted to Western rules, they retained the playing style from the old game. Could maybe mention Louis Paulsen too. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

150 attack naming

This passage is just confusing.

The main text claims the attack is named after "players of this strength"... but that's exactly what the "alternative" explanation says.

Who are "they"? The British players mentioned or somebody else?

Are there even two theories or could we simply bring over the text in the note to the main article? CapnZapp (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous Nd7 reference

In the "Other systems" subsection of the "Main line: 3...g6" section, there's an ambiguous reference to Nd7 in one of the lines, which I have flagged as ambiguous since in this position (I checked) it could refer either to Nbd7 or Nfd7. Although I explained this in the "reason" parameter of the "ambiguous" tag, it didn't show up in the published version. (It's possible that, in spite of my efforts to do so, I failed to use the syntax of the tag correctly.) HarmonicSphere (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems that text s/ have come earlier in the para. Have relocated it to fix the prob. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso I could be missing something, but I'm still seeing the ambiguous Nd7 reference there, and I can't make out an earlier clarifying reference. The text I'm looking at reads, "4.Bc4 Bg7 5.Qe2 is a sharp try for advantage; 5...Nc6 can lead to hair-raising complications after 6.e5, when Black's best line may be 6...Ng4 7.e6 Nxd4 8.Qxg4 Nxc2+, avoiding the more frequently played 6...Nxd4 7.exf6 Nxe2 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Ngxe2 Rxg7, which has been generally considered to lead to an equal or unclear position, though White has scored heavily in practice. 6...Nd7 is now considered fine for Black, in view of [...]"

I get one of 2 resulting positions from this, the first of which is r1bqk2r/pp1nppbp/2pp1np1/4P3/2BP4/2N5/PPP1QPPP/R1B1K1NR w KQkq - 1 7

as opposed to

rnbqk2r/pp1nppbp/2pp2p1/4P3/2BP4/2N5/PPP1QPPP/R1B1K1NR w KQkq - 1 7

I'm not sure which one applies, because both ensuing lines from these positions as described in the article look plausible to my admittedly amateurish eye. Any help disambiguating this position is gratefully appreciated! HarmonicSphere (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nd7 is now in the context of 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.Qe2 Nc6 6.e5 Nd7 7.e6 fxe6 8.Qxe6 Nde5 9.Qd5 e6 in the article, where 6...Nd7 isn't ambiguous. (Ok?) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso Thanks! That helps immensely. HarmonicSphere (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)