Game #46: the Pirc Defense as White, and the win that ended nine losses
On January 17, 2024 I had lost nine rapid games in a row. Game #46 was my tenth try, with White, against timtime2, rated 1055, while I sat at 871. The opening record calls it a Pirc Defense, so this is also my first proper look at playing the Pirc Defense as White: nine moves, no inaccuracies according to Stockfish, and then my opponent abandoned the game. The win took me to 884 and stopped the slide.
That is the honest headline. This "upset" was not a brilliant attack or a long fight. It was a short, tidy opening, followed by an empty chair on the other side. I still think it's worth writing up, because those nine moves are a clean example of what I should have been doing in the games I lost, and because the engine disagreed with me in two places I would never have noticed.
The context: nine losses and 60 points gone
The week 2 diary has the full picture. I had moved from 15|10 to 10|5 rapid, and from game #37 to game #45 I lost every game. My rating went from 931 after game #36 down to 871 after game #45. The last loss before this one was game #45 against B0BB0Yz (990), where my accuracy was 43.3%.
So the numbers going into game #46 were not encouraging: 871 against 1055, a gap of 184 points, seven days after game #1 of this series. I don't know what my opponent was thinking, and I'm not going to reconstruct my mood from memory. What the data does show is exactly how I played.
| Game | #46, January 17, 2024, 10|5 rapid |
| Me | nacsol3, White, 871 → 884 |
| Opponent | timtime2 (1055), Black |
| Opening (as recorded) | Pirc Defense, ECO B07 |
| Moves played | 9 (my last move: 9.a3) |
| Result | Win, game abandoned |
| My accuracy (Stockfish) | 94.4% |
| Opponent's accuracy | 89.7% |
| My inaccuracies, mistakes, blunders | 0, 0, 0 |
A Pirc Defense that wasn't really a Pirc
The game went 1.d4 d6 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bd3 Nd7 6.O-O e5 7.h3 Bf6 8.d5 Nf8 9.a3. After the first two moves, the database filed it as a Pirc Defense. The textbook Pirc has Black putting a knight on f6 and a pawn on g6, then the bishop on g7. My opponent did none of that: the pawns went to d6, e6 and c6, the bishop to e7 and then f6, and the knights to d7 and f8.
That matters for anyone searching for how to play the Pirc Defense as White. The label on your game can say "Pirc" while the position in front of you is something quite different. In this game I didn't try to remember any theory. I put the knights on c3 and f3, the bishop on d3 and castled. Simple development: getting your pieces off the back row before doing anything ambitious.
That same week I had two other games filed under the Pirc with White: game #43 against mcapp (1279), a loss, and game #53 against nhakmiller (889), a draw. One win, one loss and one draw is not a pattern. It does tell me the Pirc-shaped openings were not what kept beating me that week.
The three moments the engine flagged
None of my moves in this game got a judgement. These are simply the places where the engine's preferred move differed most from mine. Evaluations are from White's side: +1 means White is about a pawn better.
Move 6: castling instead of pushing the e-pawn
After 5...Nd7 the engine had me slightly better (+1.13). I castled, which tucks the king away and brings the rook toward the centre. The engine preferred 6.e5, pushing the pawn into the centre straight away. After my castling the evaluation dropped a little, to +0.78, still slightly better for White.
The quick check confirms the ranking: e5 first, then Bf4 and Ne2, all three slightly better for White. Castling is not a mistake here. It's the move a beginner is told to play, and it's what I played. The engine's point is that Black hadn't developed the kingside knight yet, so there was a moment to grab space before Black got organised. I had 9 minutes and 37 seconds left after castling, so time was not the reason.
Move 8: closing the centre with d5
Black played 6...e5 and 7...Bf6, building pressure on my d4 pawn. I answered 8.d5, pushing past it. That closes the centre: the pawns on d5, e5, d6 and e4 lock together and most of the play moves to the sides. The engine's stored best move was 8.Ne2, rerouting the knight; the quick check prefers 8.Be3 (+0.99), with Ne2 (+0.90) and taking on e5 (+0.98) close behind. My d5 gave +0.50 according to the stored analysis.
The takeaway from this position: I didn't have to resolve the tension. When two pawns face each other, keeping them there leaves your opponent with a capture to worry about every move. All three of the engine's top choices kept the tension or took on e5; my d5 settled the question for Black and cut my edge from +0.87 to +0.50.
Black's only inaccuracy: the knight back to f8
Black then played 8...Nf8, retreating the knight from d7 to its own back row. That was the one inaccuracy in the game. The engine preferred 8...Ne7, developing the other knight, and after Nf8 the evaluation rose back to +1.20 for me.
I replied 9.a3, a quiet pawn move. The engine would have pushed the same pawn two squares, 9.a4 (+1.14 in the quick check), to claim space on the queenside; my a3 still left me at +0.99. That was the last move of the game. My opponent had 9 minutes and 17 seconds on the clock, and the game ended as abandoned. The whole thing lasted about five minutes.
What the engine says, and what I take from it
The engine's verdict is modest. My best winning chance in the whole game was 61.4%, which is "slightly better", nothing more. If timtime2 had kept playing, there was a long game ahead and plenty of room for me to throw it away, as I did in five games that week after being at least 80% winning.
So I don't count this as proof that I could beat 1050s. What I do count is the way I played those nine moves:
- Every piece I moved was defended or safe. No loose knights, no early queen trips.
- I castled before move 7 and kept my king out of trouble.
- I didn't chase anything. No pawn grabs, no checks for their own sake.
Compare that with the games just before it. In my nine losses from game #37 to #45 the engine flagged 20 blunders: 7 in the opening and 13 in the middlegame, and seven of those nine games had at least one. (The other two, #38 and #42, I lost with over 95% accuracy, which is its own lesson about small edges.) Game #46 had none. The difference was not a deep plan. It was not giving anything away.
The two moments where the engine disagreed with me are both about being a bit more ambitious in the centre: pushing e5 on move 6, and keeping the d4 pawn where it was on move 8. Neither one is something I would have spotted on my own at 871. That is exactly what a review is for, and why I now look at quiet games as well as disasters. Chess.com's own review often doesn't explain why the engine prefers one quiet move over another, which is the gap I want Chess Coach to fill.
What changed afterwards
The streak was over, but the week didn't turn into a winning run. I won the next game too, game #47 against 13SAVE (1007) with Black and 91.8% accuracy, and reached 895. Over the 20 games from #47 to #66 I went 8 wins, 11 losses and 1 draw, and finished the week at 899, 15 points above where game #46 left me.
The lesson I take from it is short: the games I win are the ones where I don't give anything away in the first ten moves. The very next week showed the limit of that rule: 8 of my 27 losses came after the engine had given me at least an 80% winning chance, so "don't give anything away" has to keep going long after move 10.
Next in the series: game #70, a King's Gambit Declined against a 1097, where the win came from my opponent's single blunder rather than an abandoned board. The full week is in the week 2 diary, the following one in week 3, and every other post is on the journey page. If you want to see moments like these in your own games, Chess Coach runs the same Stockfish review and explains it in plain words.
Frequently asked questions
How should White play against the Pirc Defense as a beginner?
In my game #46 the plain plan worked: knights out, bishop out, castle, and no loose pieces. The engine rated all nine of my moves as free of inaccuracies, although it preferred pushing the e-pawn on move 6 instead of castling.
Why does Chess.com call 1.d4 d6 2.e4 a Pirc Defense?
Because the game record files it under ECO code B07, the Pirc. My opponent never put a knight on f6 or a pawn on g6, so the middlegame looked nothing like a typical Pirc.
Does beating a higher-rated player mean you're getting better?
Not on its own. My win over a 1055 lasted nine moves and ended because my opponent abandoned. In the next 20 games I went 8 wins, 11 losses and 1 draw.