Talk:Pirc Defence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  .  Bubba73 (talk), 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pirc players?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  chessgames.com 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Played frequently in the 1850's

message: 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)
thread_title:  150 attack naming