Is the Pirc defense a bad choice for black? (e4)

Since I have never seen it in a top openings for black and the opening analyzer of all the websites gives good odds to white, I suposed that I should stop using it.

The answer is not 'it depends' becouse black is not taking any initiative on the opening, it's just about replying white's initiative. And there is always a move that is the BEST move so I guess that I will gave to start playing the sicilian or the modern .

forget about what top players are playing. besides its still occasionally used even at the top levels. white does get an "easier" game because they are many ways white can keep a small advantage, and to play it well you will still need to study some dangerous lines deeply (Especially the austrian attack). 

 i dont play the pirc, but i do play 1.nc6 and one of the top moves avoiding 2.d4 is 2.nf3 after 

black is quite comfortable  avoiding the austrian attack.  

but it also depends on your level. pirc is not an easy defense to play for a beginner. its a defense that you always need to keep your guard and know a lot of subtleties (always have a counter to a e4-e5 push , know how to defend if white gets to play bh6 bxb and begin a kingside pawn storm. when to expand on the queenside vs not, when to play c5 vs c6 vs e5 etc).

1.b6 might actually be easier to learn if you like hypermodern defenses.

Pirc is very sturdy once you know how to answer the different lines (classical, 150, Austrian, Sveshnikov and Byrne variation). Lots of counter play.

Hmm... I remember there is also Pirc Harmonist.

Is that a real variation? Never heard about it.

Pirc Defence is good and has been played at top level including World Championship Matches. It gives black some cramped game, which is very good for counterattacking. The Austrian Attack is not to be feared: a timely ...c5 counterstrike often can demonstrate that the big white center d4-e4-f4 is in fact overextended. Pirc Defence is not easy to play, you have to think carefully to stay in the game.

https://www.chess.com/openings/Pirc-Defense-Harmonist-Variation

Engines don't like modern openings

Another named variation! I ran my games through aimchess.com and saw that I play ok against something called The Roscher Gambit (1. ef g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3). Thus the gambit accepted is 3. ... Nxe4. And I thought it was just beginners that accidently hanged their e4 pawn.

The Pirc is quite good, but the Modern Defense is a way better, it has very nice options against all lines with f3 and f4 which are very dangerous against Pirc

IF you like the positions, play the pirc, but as you get better, your homework will increase. It's a high maintenance defense to play at the higher levels. its just instead of knowing very long lines of theory, you will need to learn  by heart a lot more smaller branches to all of white's possible formations.

agaisnt very strong players, i like the 4.g3 system, but i have noticed that even agaisnt 1800-2000 rated players, a simple be3-f3-qd2 idea with 0-0-0 can lead to some very easy knockouts in rapid games. Even strong class players can be poorly prepared agaisnt some basic prep agaisnt it. Despite the moves seeming relatively straightforward, once you get past the first 6-7 moves, black must actually play with a lot of nuance to not be much worse fairly quickly. Whereas white, can often keep a larger than average advantage with fairly straightforward strategies.

There are many openings with the same idea as the Pirc. Move one pawn over and it becomes the French for example.   You do want to find an opening that works against all of white's openings and that there is a natural flow for you to make quick development while counter attacking.  That's where the bots come in.  Practice against the bots and just quit the game when things are going poorly and start over.

I just started learning the Pirc about a week ago. So far I’ve won most of the Pirc games I’ve played…and they have all been very different. My opponents in my rating level don’t know what to do and get caught in a tactic almost every game. Not that I really know what I’m doing either haha but there is definitely a lot of counterplay.

Isn't that the whole point of the Pirc? Otherwhise you might just as well be playing KID.
Certainly an early push like this:

By all means, push that pawn lol. Just ran it through the analysis tool and this give a 1.46 advantage to black. It can be quite devastating for beginners to lose their queen this early, although you'd have to be comfortable playing without a queen yourself, on the other hand it simplifies things and white lost their castling rights.

Same with the Austrian attack...

Moving the knight at this point isn't my favorite choice cause it blocks the light squared bishop, but they're all valid and neither one gives a clear advantage.

With later pushes it would depend of course, but most likely the knight's already going to be gone since you want to open up the diagonal for the dark squared bishop.

And of course there is a bit of theory, but it's a pretty easy setup, the 2 examples I've given are easy enough to remember, and if you understand the role of the bishops and basic chess principles (but then again if you don't know these, why even bother?) you kind of like should be able to wing it from there as a beginner, cause your opponent's (most likely) a beginner too so they're not going to make all the right moves either. And you add more layers of theory as you go.

I was playing the pirc recently, but for me I don't like it. I don't think I'm a strong enough player. I could have stuck with it and kept watching videos and reading books but I decided to switch to the french. I think good players can make it work and get good counterplay but I found for me I was conceeding too much space and it was easy to get steamrolled or for white to advance too far and I was getting in trouble defending tactics with not enough space or counterplay in return. So I think it's a playable opening but for not great players like me it's probably not the best choice

I think so...

A Pirc without ...g6 does not exist. Black playing ...g6 is what deflnes the opening as a pirc.

1.e4 d6 2.d4 e5 is a Maroczy defence

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 or 3...e5 is a type of Philidor Defence

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 (intending 4...Qa5) is a Czech Defence

citation needed. Especially for the nimzowitsch.

this is some botched pirc/nimzowitsch hybrid.  

This is like the following argument

A: i play the indian defense as black!
B: no such thing , they are indian defenses which are a family, but no indian defense, 1.d4 nf6 is called indian defense as a placeholder name, you will become something.
A,: no after 1.d4 nf6 2.c4 i play nh5 which doesnt become any of the other defenses so its still the indian defense 

Thats called a bad move with no name. Opening categorization is mostly a pragmatic affair (this is why some many databases get into trouble with precise opening categorization). Pirc is 1.e4 d6 with nf6 g6, bg7 intended as formation. There is some fuzziness even there though.

you are missing the point.

an opening doesnt get a name merely on how good/bad it is.  It has to be a configuration of revelance.

1.e4 d6  2.na3.   <---- is this a pirc. 

1.e4 d6 2.na3 e5 what about this?    2.na3 d5   what about now.?

or perhaps most relevant to your example 1.e4 d6 2.na3 h5?    <---- is this monstrocity a "pirc"? how?

despite the fact you went out of book move 2, most people would categorize one as a transposition to a philidor, and one as a favorable scandinavian. If black plays 2.nf6  3.g6 4.bg7 etc no one would hesitate to call it a pirc again. 

Oh but what if black plays some stupid move idea qd2-qh6 to force trade of the f8 bishop for a queen on h6  and then not letting yoou achieve the bg7, is it a pirc then?

Chess opening categorization is almost entirely a pragmatic affair. Pirc 1.d6 where black goes for nf6, g6 bg7 is as functional as a definition as you can get. its fuzzy for the reasons the categorizations mentioned above are fuzzy.

ergo what you showed isnt a pirc,, its some made up stuff. why call  it a pirc when you can just as easily get it it a variation of the nimzowitsch defense declined then via 1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 d6 3.d4 nf6 4.nc3? and if you insist on calling THAT a transposition to pirc, would it be a pirc after the old main line involving bg4? No, no one would call it a pirc even if the nimzowitsch line was not named. The thematic formation was not achieved.