Is the Pirc a good "win at all costs" system?

Hey, so currently I have been playing the open games as black vs 1.e4. I really like playing this way and will probably keep 1...e5 as a cornerstone in my repertoire for the rest of my life. The problem is that a lot of lines lead to early simplification, often resulting in a dead equal position which is tough when you need to win as black.

So I've decided that I need a 'back-up' system for those times when I am playing someone weaker, who is likely to simplify the position, or when I am in a must win situation as black. Now I have a fair bit of experience with the Sicilian, but I have to review it constantly to remember numerous sharp theoretical lines. For a back-up system, which I will probably play against 1.e4 less than 25% of the time, this seems like a lot of work. So that lead me to consider taking up the Pirc again. I know that there is a forced draw in the 5...c5 Austrian attack, but black can take some risks to avoid it, or just play 5...0-0. I like the flexibility of black's position, which allows for many different set-ups. I also feel that, unlike the sicilian, I can just "play chess" at a fairly early stage in the Pirc, although the Austrian has some forcing lines. It also allows me to play the leningrad dutch (another win at all costs system) with a 1...d6 move order to avoid annoying anti-dutch lines. 

So what do you guys think? Basically I want to avoid forced draws, keep material on the board, and make strong positional imbalances. I don't care if I am slightly worse in a lot of lines, as long as there is play in the position.

BTW, what do you Pirc players like to do against 3.Bd3? People kept playing this against me last year which discouraged me from playing the Pirc. Is there theory on this move? They always reinforce their centre with c3 after I hit it with c5, which makes counterplay against the d4 square more difficult.

I have Vigus' excellent Pirc book, which covers the whole opening for both sides, so I won't be needing Alburt's book. I agree that the modern is also a good choice, and indeed I have had some trouble as white against the a6/b5/Bb7 lines, but I like the Pirc better and will stick to it.

In the first diagram I can see black is fine. What I meant was what should black do when white plays 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 and now 3.Bd3 instead of 3.Nc3. This avoids the Pirc, which officially starts after 3.Nc3 g6. So should black play 3...g6 anyway? I find that white has a certain flexibility in his position which is quite annoying because he keeps the options of playing both c3, reinforcing the centre, and f4 going for an Austrian type of attack, open. As far as I know black's main counterplay is against the d4 square, but with c3 played this seems less effective. Any thoughts on how black should play?

if you must win as black, play the 2.... c6 scandinavian

FirebrandX, what exactly is Roman's system? I have the Pirc in Black and White, so it would be good for me to know haha.

Quality Chess publishing will be releasing a GM repertoire book on the Najdorf for black soon, so I can't say that I am not tempted to play it.

Birdboy, I would never play the Scandi, especially 2...c6.

If I felt I needed a second system to win the full point as black, I'd definitely pick up a Sicilian.  If you dread the constantly shifting sands of theory, just stay away from the 2...d6 lines.  The Najdorf and Dragon are where most of the day-to-day change seems to occur.

I'd consider the Kan.

Low theory relative to most Sicilians.  Should appeal to the Pirc player in you who likes to develop behind the scenes then counterpunch.  And taken in combination with the various anti-Sicilian lines, should score better for you over time than the Pirc, all else being equal.

A nice thing is that it's possible to play a lot of the anti-Sicilian lines in a very Kan-ish style, which helps with the theoretical burden.

A last bonus is that if you get completely lost in the opening, you can almost always bail out into a hedgehog type structure, keep all your pieces on the board, and try to pick your spot for a big one-off counterattack.

In the off chance you're not familiar, the Kan (vs. the open Sicilian) is 1...c5 2...e6 3...cxd4 4...a6, most often with Qc7 to follow.  I only add that so you can look it up on your friendly neighborhood database and see some sample games.  (Or so those reading along at home can do so for their chessic enjoyment.)

I agree with all those, and guess what, the classical is annoying too for black, simply because it can be hard for him to avoid a slight disadvantage with little counterplay, because white hasn't created any weaknesses. To me the pirc is just not worth it, at least as a full time defense to 1 e4. It, along with the alekhine, are perhaps good fighting defenses if they manage to suprise the opponent. But yeah black has to, on top of defending all the sharp variations, find counterplay against the more modest but irritating systems like the classical. I personally don't think black can equalize in the pirc (at least not every line) anyway. But that doesn't mean it would be bad as a backup or suprise opening like I said.

Sicilian is probably your best bet. It's a sound (not easy to play [that's why I don't play it myself], but sound) defense with plenty of counterplay and a definite imbalance in structure. The Kan was mentioned. This is great especially if you don't want to learn that much theory because black can often avoid an early attack by white (usually an attack by white builds up gradually instead, while black does his counterplay) while black is just sticking to a plan.

not bad choice, semiopen methods usually yield to unbalanced positions

yes but its more difficult for black than for white. white can do alot of small mistakes but if you do a single one he can often mate you

Thanks for the replies so far. I have considered the Kan, but I am not sure I want to play against a Maroczy bind set-up if white so chooses, and the flexibility of black's set-up still calls for a lot of study, even if the variations are not as theoretical and sharp as other sicilians. Plus I would have to revamp like half my anti-sicilian repertoire that I had going when I played other sicilians. 

I haven't played the Najdorf as black for close to a year, but I also have over a year's experience with that opening so maybe taking it up again wouldn't be so hard. I was thinking I could create a repertoire based on "side lines" within the Najdorf where possible, to make it less work. Although studying it will never be a waste of time because I will probably always be playing against it as white.

I have also played the Sveshnikov for about six months, and have studied it intensely during that time. Even then, I forget most of the theory as it runs so deep, and often results in a simplified position where a draw is a little too likely. I never know what is really going on in that opening either, so I figure I should improve my chess quite a bit before going back to it.

One of the reasons I dropped the Pirc after a couple months of playing it last year was that I found white had too much room to do whatever he wanted. I prefer striking in the centre earlier on with 1...e5 or 1...c5 and trying to dictate the play, so maybe the Pirc isn't for me. I just figured it would be good to have a hypermodern system to complement the classical 1...e5, and that I might be able to catch some opponents unprepared. Any thoughts?

FWIW, 5.c4 vs the Kan scores abysmally for white, according to the two databases I use.  I've never had need to be a big student of the Maroczy bind, so I'm not sure if it's less potent against the Kan than it is against whatever openings make it so infamous for stifling counterplay, or what.  And really, I get it if just the idea makes you cringe.  But statistically, anyway, the prospect of 5.c4 shouldn't put you off.

Oh, you said above, "Any thoughts?"

My thoughts are that if allowing your opponent a free hand in how to develop his plan is putting you off, then hypermodern stuff probably isn't the way to go.  I'd say maybe Alekhine's, but you already mentioned above not wanting to go that route, I believe.

Have you thought about just adding more aggressive choices within ...e5?

Schliemann vs the Ruy, e.g.?  And I don't think it's hard to find aggressive options against most other e4 openings...

You are probably right in that the Maroczy vs e6 sicilians like the Kan is no big deal. It's just that after seeing and playing the bind against other lines like the accelerated dragon, and seeing how black gets hardly any counterplay, I was rather discouraged. My other reasons for dismissing the Kan were that I would have to learn pretty much a whole new set of anti-sicilians, which probably wouldn't be too hard, and that, like the pirc, black's play isn't very forcing from the start and gives white a lot of options. I will reconsider it though, it has a very good reputation.

EDIT: I would rather not learn the alekhine's, I am currently trying to learn the white side of it for now, maybe in the future I will but for now I want to learn more principled systems.

It is not the Ruy I am worried about. There is a lot of scope to outplay the opponent in a closed ruy. It is lines like the italian, which often have forced variations which lead to simplified positions that are equal, or symmetrical stuff, like some lines of the four knights.

The Pirc defence is the greatest opening ever discovered for the black side. If I could find out the right sequence wrapped inside that defence, I may intentionally win a game.(in my tiny opinion)

i LOVE the pirc. and yes, i rarely draw :)

Oh, most of those systems aren't that dangerous/tough to learn.

There are just as many permutations and junk possibilities against the Pirc as there are against the Sicilian.  Probably more, since the black move order doesn't punish white in the early going.  They just don't all have snappy names and books dedicated to them, since the demand for Pirc information is far less.

Nobody's losing sleep prepping to face the a3 or Na3 Sicilian.

 You act as if playing the best lines is pretty much harmless, only giving chances for a tiny objective advantage. And yet, the main lines of the open are extremely dangerous for black to face. If white books up, and black is in a sharp sicilian line, black is in extreme danger with his king usually. To me, it seems that white's practical chances in an open sicilian are absolutely fantastic too. It puts the most pressure on black. The other systems do not. Fortunately for white, most of the minor lines still give play and are safe, but fortunately for black, he can get counterplay without having to worry so much about the blistering piece attacks (or quick pawn storms) on the k side. In more minor variations for white, black can relax a little at least.

I think basically playing the open against black is basically saying "ok, if you play this right you'll get counterplay, but I'm going to make so many threats that you're bound to crack.". Variations like the closed (though I like it anyway lol) just kind of give black the counterplay "for free". I mean not really, but he justdoesn't have to be that alert early on.

But yeah from the BLACK prespective, playing the black side of the sicilian is very risky if you don't know it well, because black's giving white a free hand in the center and kingside (and more development) to create a long term structural advantage with more center pawns and the c file, which tends to be slower than white's attack.

Well, I am not an especially strong player (roughly 2000 standard on FICS, unrated OTB) but when I played the sicilian I got the open variation at least 70% of the time in online chess, weather it was blitz or correspondence. The anti-sicilians don't worry me much anyway. I think that unless you are up against someone real strong you don't need to know that much concrete theory to get a good position. It is actually quite annoying how little I get to play a main line Ruy Lopez as black, or any Ruy for that matter, compared to how often I got an open sicilian as black. This shows that the sicilian is what most white players prioritize their study time on, and probably for good reason.

I am becoming more and more intrigued by the Kan variation, so much that I just might have to give it a go. Does anyone know if white has forced drawing lines against it?

Basically I want something I can use not only in must win situations (if my opponent is content with a draw) but also in OTB situations where I am playing someone much weaker (happens a lot where I live) and need to keep the pieces on the board in order to create problems for them to solve, and well, hopefully outplay them. There is a good chance I could still do that with 1...e5, but a lot of lines in the Greco-Moller attack or the Max Lange, for example, lead to mass simplifications, and an equal endgame, while other lines that I play can be quite symmetrical or offer white a draw by repetition. So I feel like my chances of winning against someone weaker are less with 1...e5 than 1...c5, although probably still possible.

"is the pirc a good 'win at all costs' system?"

in short, no (since you are specifically referring to playing as black against 1. e4).

playing the sicilian would be my suggestion. definitely has a good track record for black.