43 ( +1 | -1 ) Pirc...I am experimenting with pretty much any defense I can find, and ive chosen the pirc as my next to try out. It seems to me like it has the same concept as the KID or the modern... Just the whole "let white build up a big defense then take it apart =) ) I was wondering that if it usually transposes into lines similar to the KID then how come so many Players that play KID dont play the pirc against e4? Who here plays this defense?
17 ( +1 | -1 ) Pirc DefenseIf you are interested in the Pirc Defense, I recomend you the new book by Lev Alburt and Alexander Chernin: "Pirc Alert". It is excellent and puts more emphasis on ideas than in variations.
27 ( +1 | -1 ) philaretusAre you sure you are playing the Sicilian in the right manner ?
The Sicilian is an exciting roller coaster of an opening, Black makes his queenside objectives clear at an early stage and White launches a ferocious Kingside attack in reply. Boring it certainly ain't !!
2 ( +1 | -1 ) Boring it is......, almost as boring as 1...c6
28 ( +1 | -1 ) I meant that the Pirc and the Sicilian are boring for WHITE. All you can do is try to keep Black under restraint. With the Sicilian, I've become convinced that urosub is right, and that White's best strategy is to play 2. c4, turning the opening into a variation of the symmetrical English.
58 ( +1 | -1 ) can't get developedi have played the pirc many times, largely unsuccessfully....i usually find that i can't get the queen's bishop, knight or rook developed and they're still on their original squares halfway through the game. this is most frustrating and i wonder why i persist with the opening...the answer is that 1.....d6 is aesthetically pleasing. it's a denial of central conflict and - it feels good ! it's rather like making moves on a real chessboard with your left hand when you're actually right-handed..it adds something else to the game....honestly.
34 ( +1 | -1 ) I've heard a lot philaretusin the last +35 yrs I have played chess, but I don't think I've ever heard that the Sicilian opening is a boring one, at least not before now! Maybe your mixing it up with that Sicilian is (like the Spanish) "overanalyzed" that is, after my opinion true, but boring- nope, it is for both parts a "deadley" opening!
12 ( +1 | -1 ) SicilianCairo, I'm temporarily out of action because of a computer fault, but as soon as I'm back I'll give you an example of what I mean.
7 ( +1 | -1 ) philaretusThanks, I will be looking forward to that!
14 ( +1 | -1 ) pircIn the last (and only) 9 months of my grand chess career I dont think I have heard that the pirc is boring either =)
52 ( +1 | -1 ) The Sicilian (or the Silly One)Cairo, this game was played on another site. I had the White pieces.
44 ( +1 | -1 ) philaretusSee the possibillities!
I have just skimmed thru your game and first thing there stroke me was, if you think its boring why not 6.g4!? after that I can asure nothing is boring. Instead of Qf3 in front of your f4 pawn, try a4!?
Here in the Najdorf, the possibillities is good for both parts, but off course it is always possible to make the game boring if both parts agreeing to it!
Good luck with your chess :-))
42 ( +1 | -1 ) SorenI agree that 6.g4!? would have livened up the game, but only in the sense that spectacularly cutting your own throat would liven up your life.
As for 8.a4, I think I considered that, but rejected it as too passive in an already boring game.
This is the problem with defences like the Sicilian. If Black just won't come out and fight, there's little practical that White can do for the time being.
151 ( +1 | -1 ) snyper : misconception about the PIRC !!!Let me retrieve your query on "how come so many players of the KID do not play the PIRC against 1.e4?", based on your theory that that both has similar conception.
With due respect, at first glance the set-up of both defenses appears perfectly similar, but alas!!, KID fanatics have seen a focal point why they dislike the PIRC. Let's take a deeper look :
a) In KID, the dragon bishop is much deadlier because it controls the diagonal a1-h8 in broad scope. WHY? Because white had already committed the c-pawn at c4!!!
b) In KID, the thematic central push e5 is generally a strategical and/or tactical necessity. Whereas in PIRC, in general perception, the e5 push might create undesirable weaknesses around the black king's premises or perimeter, because of a possible white's positional stroke de5 followed by Bc4 (please take note that white's c-pawn is still at c2 square!).
c) In PIRC, it is generally difficult to create a kingside assault against white. On the other hand, in KID, kingside attack is its bread and butter.
d) In KID, the BYRNE set-up a6,c6,b5 for black works well as it attempts to destroy the white's strong central fortress c4,d5,e4. Whereas in PIRC, the BYRNE set-up, though pleasing to the eyes, is just a mere decoration, hence no sting at all.
Despite of positional setbacks of the PIRC, I still love to play it. It is perfectly suited to those advocates who adhere to classic positional standards. Attacking players curse it as TOO BORING!!! If you have a chessbase, you may try to study the games of Zurab Azmajparashvili and Mikhail Gurevich.