OK, the very last post then. The reasons I call that line Argentinian Attack, are threefold:
1. the systems with Be3/f3 have no name yet.
2. it was first played in an Argentinian championship of 1931 or 1932.
3. in the 50'ies the Pilnik and Rosetto had succes with it.
The advantage of 4.Be3 is that White keeps the option c6 5.h3 and 6.f4 open, as I have explained in another thread. But I am willing to repeat my arguments in the thread Michael Ayton will open.

"Argentinian Attack"?  I am interested - what is the origin of that moniker?  I have never heard it referred to as such ...

For what it is worth, I think Black is doing OK in that variation after (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3) 4...c6 5.Qd2 Nbd7! holding back on ...b5 for the time being (at least until White has played 0-0-0) and keeping options open of ...Qc7, ...Qa5, ...e5, ...Bg7.

The problems with the Pirc are first and foremost the Austrian, then the 4.Bg5!? lines and finally a variety of fairly quiet systems (not least the fianchetto, but also the h3/Be3 lines) by which White can play for a nagging edge in a fairly peaceful position.

This last category (which is perhaps to be expected of more or less any Blak opening) would be fine if Black weren't struggling somewhat in the sharper lines ...

Thanks for this. I am greatly interested in the (four!?) main forms of the Gurgenidze, and may well try one of them at some point, but have decided to play the Modern instead for the moment, as I feel the need to bring more dynamism into my play (as well as feeling that at my humble level of play it's useful in practical terms to do so ).

In your last sentence do you mean, 'if it is not for the possibility it provides of AVOIDING the AA'? IF so I'm not sure I'd agree -- my feeling is that other lines against the Pirc (e.g. the Bg5 lines and maybe the 150 Attack) are at least as dangerous as anything White has (excepting only 4 f4) against the Modern.

H'm -- is it so remarkable? I wasn't saying that, in the position after 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 f4, I WOULD play 4 ...Nf6, merely that I might, and that that's the only way I as a Modern player might encounter an AA. Personally, I'd prefer to play 4 ...Nd7 5 Nf3 and now either 5 ...a6 or 5 ...c5, but there's an ongoing argument (expressed in other threads on this site) over the viability of both these lines. Feeling as I do that 4 f4 might well be White's strongest try after 3 ...d6 and a real challenge to Black's set-up, I'm just seeking to explore which Black response(s) might be soundest, irrespective of where they might transpose (4 ...Nd7 5 Nf3 c5 6 d5 a6, for instance, might produce an unusual Schmid Benoni).

Thanks for all your replies. Well, I always did think the Pirc was vastly inferior to the Modern. playing which is the only way I'd reach an Austrian Attack (after 3 Nc3 d6 4 f4)! But seriously, 9 ...Kf8, with or without the 14 ...Nc6 plan, needs to be refuted before it's dismissed. And while Aagaard played a lovely combination against Nouro, we still need to know what he had prepared against 16 ...Kd7. Perhaps we should ask Eric Prie, since it was he who was on the receiving end of it!

It seems that white has begun to avoid that forced draw and play for a win instead!

There's a couple of recent Nataf games and Aagaard took an easy point in Rilton recently, see link below.

http://nyheder.dsu.dk/enkelt_nyhed.php?id=128

It is also not mentioned in "Starting out: the pirc", "Pirc Alert", or the pirc section in "An explosive chess opening repertoire for Black".

I was looking at what Fritz has to say, and after your 16. 0-0-0, Fritz perfers 16. ...Bg7. This turns out to prevent 17. g4 (which was strong after Rac8), because of 17. ...Qxc2! 18. Kxc2 Nd4+, picking up the queen. After this, Fritz evaluates the position as close to equal. But I would imagine that the human evaluation is similar to the lines with 9. ...Kd7, which seems to be that white has slightly better chances, because Black's king is more exposed.

A happy and prosperous new year to all!

I was wondering if Alumbrado or any other Pirc experts might have any views about Black's wisdom in avoiding, via 8 ...Bb5, the forced draw in the Pirc after 4 f4 Bg7 5 Nf3 c5 6 Bb5 Bd7 7 e5 Ng4 8 e6 fe 9 Ng5 Bb5 (10 Ne6 Bd4 11 Nd8! Bf2 =).  In particular I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts or analysis on 9 ef Kf8!?, with the forced-looking continuation 10 Nb5 Qa5 11 Nc3 cd 12 Nd4 Kf7. In the only game I can find where this was played (Mansurov--Ader, Budapest '93) Black quickly succumbed to an attack after 13 Qg4 (not forced, of course!) Bd4 14 Bd2 Qf5 15 Qf3 Nc6 16 0-0-0 Rac8 17 g4 Qa5 18 f5, but the defence can surely be improved. Perhaps Black should leave the Queen on the queenside to discourage 0-0-0, so why not 14 ...Nc6!? here? I was pleased to see Fritz likes this and seems to think Black's OK.  There are lots of messy variations, anyway, and it's surely a 'stronger player will win' position. Any thoughts? Do Nunn & McNab mention 9 ...Kf8?