So the matter of when to play f2-f3 is of more interest then I thought. If I had known, that there was so much interest in the Be3/Qd2 systems, I would have started a thread long time before. A few remarks.

1) 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f3 initially was the normal move order, to prevent the ...Ng4 sally. Only in the 80-s it became clear, that this is not to be feared. This raised the popularity of 4.Be3 and 5.Qd2, though it has not reached the status of the Austrian Attack (yet?) Black can play 4...Ng4, 5...Ng4 and 6...Ng4 (assuming White postpones f3), but all versions are good for White.

2) 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 0-0 6.f3 allows both c5 and e5.
2a) The only game I ever lost as White after ...0-0 saw 6.f3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5. It was not a pleasant experience, I never succeeded in developing my kingside. The same idea is known in the KID. Instead White can play a kind of Benoni with 7.d5 or transpose to a very topical variation of the Dragon with 7.Nge2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.0-0-0.
2b) 6.f3 e5 7.d5 (7.Nge2 exd4 8.Nxd4 d5!?) c6 8.0-0-0 cxd5 drew attention after Judasin-Zaitsjik, Kostroma 1985. Since then White's results have been very good.
2c) As 6.0-0-0 avoids these possibilities, these lines are only relevant if White plays 4.f3.

3) 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6 6.f3 b5 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6 Bb7 is the famous game Kasparov-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999. I have always felt, that both players were improvising during the opening. 9...b4! looks better to me. White should consider 8.g4 (to answer Nb6 with 9.Ng3) and 7.h4. It does not make sense to castle, as Black's king in the centre will be safer than White's.
It's in the game K-T that I have found the quote "a major exponent of the 4.Be3 line GM Vlastimil Jansa would be dissatisfied with this move, as later Black will have to lose a tempo capturing on h6."
It's remarkable, that after 6.f3 usually some patient manoeuvring is required. Theoretically chances are equal, but of course play can become very interesting - see the K-T game again.
As explained in my first post I prefer 6.Bh6.
The real 150-Attack (ugly name indeed) might be met with Nbd7 7.Bh6 Bxh6 8.Qxh6 e5, which usually will transpose to 6.Bh6 lines.

4) 4.Be3 c6 5.Qd2 and I think Nbd7 more precise then b5.
4a) 5.Qd2 b5 6.Bd3 and 7.Nf3 should not deserve the name 150-Attack. White castles kingside and will try to exploit Black's weakness on the queenside, beginning with a4. This will attract allround players, but not the hackers amongst us. White's results have been pretty good.
4b) 5.Qd2 Nbd7 6.Nf3 e5 is very solid. 
4c) 5.Qd2 Nbd7 6.f3 b5 (or b5 6.f3 Nbd7) followed by 7...Nb6 prevents White from playing g4 and Ng1-e2-g3. Maybe 7.h4 Nb6 8.Nh3 offers some chances. If it does, Black can always return to 3) by playing 7...Bg7. Another idea is 7.Bd3 e5 8.Nge2, castling kingside again and start queenside play with a4. Again 5.Qd2 Nbd7 6.f3 e5 is more solid.
4d) It is just to satisfy my curiosity, that I delve in 4a, b and c. Sharper and more dangerous is 5.h3 (iso 5.Qd2) followed by 6.f4. As this is off topic, I will not give more details.

5) 4.f3 c6 5.Be3 Qb6 6.Qc1 is best. True, White's intentions have been disrupted, but Black's queen is not ideally placed either. As soon she moves (probably to a5), White can play Qd2, with all kind of transpositions. Until then White can play either g4, Ng1-e2-g3 or h4, Nh3. Just like Black (s)he can leave the king in the centre for a while.
There is nothing against 5...b5 6.Qd2 Nbd7 and not much against ...Bg7, transposing to points 3 and 4.
Moreover White can avoid this by playing 4.Be3 c6 5.Qd2 first. As a result the idea ...Qb6 is irrelevant.

I hope it has become clear, how important the defence with e5, Nbd7 and Qe7 actually is. By no means I already agree, that 4.Be3 c6 5.Qd2 b5 is the optimal move order. There are two counterarguments: 5...Nbd7 and 5.h3.

@JEH
You are completely right, that White borrows many ideas from the Jugoslav Attack. Black spending two tempi on c7-c5xd4 is not the only difference though. I have not often seen Black playing e5 and Qe7 (also two tempi) in the Jugoslav Attack. Neither I ever have met the exchange sac Rxc3 in the Pirc. 

Didn´t know of 5...Qb6 idea, thanks for that.

I suppose 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 c6!? 5.Qd2 may be the optimal move order for both sides.
White still has the option of transposing back into some kind of "150 attack" - no sorry that name cant stick! It has got to be the worst name I´ve heard of for a variation.

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 c6!? 5.Qd2 b5 - now White must go 6.f3 or 6.Bd3, just thinking aloud because I am no expert in this line, but I suppose if Black can complete his system with a setup of ...Nbd7, ...Bb7,...e5 (not sure of the specific order) with nothing bad happening to him - then he can continue on with ...Bg7 and ...0-0. This at least is my general view of it, since there are some positional nasties to counter such as a4 - best to deal with all of that then complete the development would be my philosophy. If it can be done is another thing 

MNb wrote on 09/13/06 at 02:52:21:

Also note the blaze of popularity of the English against the Najdorf. The set up is usable against some other variations too.

MNb wrote on 09/13/06 at 02:52:21:

I agree that these variations desperately need a name. Horrible though the name 150-Attack is, it seems to have stuck. Well it could have been worse, like the "Toilet."
Has the name "Argentine" caught on anywhere else. I'm happy with it for the purpose of this thread, rather than saying Be3/Qd2/f3 variation.


MNb wrote on 09/13/06 at 02:52:21:

Normally I wouldn't castle into such things until I'd diffused the bomb. But worth a look to see if this logical approach can work. I'll have a look into it when I have more time along with the other questions.

Nice to see some threads on the Pirc. It seemed to have gone dry in the forum, and the Chesspublishing site has been devoid of current Pircs for a long while until this month.

The Sämisch Attack against the KID and the Jugoslav Attack against the Dragon are established theory. I have always found it a bit strange, that the same setup against the Pirc is not more popular. With only very few exceptions I always have played it. Under ELO 1800 White may expect Black to castle; above Black usually knows it's risky.

Question 1 (for Marc Narciso only): iirc you have a title. Are you GM?

The other questions are for everybody.

q2: I call the setup with f3, Be3 and Qd2 the Argentine Attack. The first games were played by Argentines, who were also the first regular practicioners (especially Corte and Rossetto).
If White plays Nf3 instead, we get the 150-Attack. Does everyone agree with this nomenclature?

q3: What about the defence with e5, Nbd7 and Qe7? Let me explain this.

Ree,H - Donner,J [B07]
NEDch Zierikzee (2), 1967
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f3 Bg7 5.Be3 0–0 6.Qd2 e5 7.Nge2 c6 8.0–0–0 Nbd7 9.Bh6 b5 10.h4 Re8 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.h5 Qe7 13.g4 Nf8 14.Ng3 Kh8 15.Be2 Bb7 16.Rdg1 Ne6 17.dxe5 dxe5 18.hxg6 fxg6 19.Qh6 Qg7 20.Qh4 Nd4 21.Bd1 Nd7 22.Nb1 Qe7 23.Qh6 Nf8 24.Nf5 Qc7 25.c3 Nde6 26.Bb3 Nf4 27.Rh2 c5 28.Qh4 Qd8 29.Qh6 Qc7 30.Qh4 Qd8 ½–½

You will not find this game in Nunn/McNab; in fact they ignore the idea completely. It took me some effort to reinforce White's attack: 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.g5 N6d7 (Nxh5 17.Nxh5 gxh5 18.Rxh5 Ne6 19.Bxb5 cxb5 20.Nd5 wins) 17.Nf5 gxf5 18.exf5 Nb6 19.f6 Qc7 20.Bd3 Nfd7 21.Rdg1 with a dangerous attack.
Still Black's defensive idea strikes me as very logical. The exchange Be3-h6xg7 is usually essential for White's attack. This basically consists of following Fischer's devise: h2-h4-h5xg6, sac, sac mate. With the bishops exchanged it is natural to fix some white pawns (e4, f3) on White squares. Black can protect the vulnerable pawn h7 sufficiently. As a result White can only make progress with the manoeuvre Ng1-e2-g3-f5; sometimes as a sac.

This brings me to the variation 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6
-5...0-0 6.0-0-0 c6 see q5.

6.Bh6
-6.Nf3 is the 150-Attack; 6.f3 the Argentine Attack. 6.Bh6 leaves the choice open.

6...0-0
-the main variation is 6...Bxh6 7.Qxh6 Nbd7 (e5) 8.0-0-0 e5 9.h3 (9.f3!?) Nbd7 10.Nf3. Kasparov-Radjabov, Moscow 2002 is one important game.

7.f3
-"the mixture of ...0-0 and ...c6 is doubtful; if Black wants to expand with ...c6 and ...b5 he should not present White with a fixed target." Nunn/McNab. Yes, but they don't say anything about ...e5.
7.Nf3 is the 150-Attack again.
Other options are 7.h4 (see q4), 7.Bxg7 Kxg7 8.Nf3 and 7.0-0-0.

7...e5
-or 7...b5 8.h4 e5. Again White must exchange bishops himself: 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 Qe7 11.Nge2 Bxh6! 12.Qxh6 b4 13.Nb1 Nb6 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Ng3 Be6 is equal.

8.Bxg7
-as 8.Nge2 Nxe4! equalizes immediately.

8...Kxg7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.h4 Qe7 11.g4
-Fischer is right after 11.h5 Nxh5? 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.g4. Black must play the cool defensive move 11.h5 b5! controlling square c4. As White cannot involve his remaining bishop in his attack, he cannot break through. One example is 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.g4 Nb6 14.Nge2?? Nc4 0-1.

11...b5 12.Nge2 Nb6
-12...Re8 13.h5 Nf8 14.Ng3 Kh8 transposes to Ree-Donner, NEDch 1967. White must play 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.g5 as shown above.

13.Ng3 Be6 14.h5 b4 15.Nb1 a5
-Now it's clear, why White should not exchange on e5 too early. After 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.h5 b4 16.Nb1 Rfd8 Black has a good game.
15...Bxa2 16.Qg5 Be6 17.dxe5 dxe5 18.Qxe5 Kg8 19.hxg6 fxg6 20.Nf5 wins.

16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Qg5 Nbd7 18.hxg6 fxg6 19.Nf5
After some complicated transpositions we have reached Potter-Klein, USA Open 1994. White should have won.
If this is correct, Black's defensive idea is cracked. Essential are: exchange bishops yourself and delay the exchange on e5.
But immediately I feel some doubts again. Maybe Black can play 7...Bxh6 8.Qxh6 e5 9.0-0-0 Qe7.

So I repeat q3. Are my analysis, evaluations and conclusions correct? Is Black's defense with e5, Qe7 and Nbd7 cracked indeed?

q4 assumes, that 7.f3 e5 (or maybe Bxh6 8.Qxh6 e5) holds. Can White play an improved version? 7.h4 Bxh6 8.Qxh6 Ng4 9.Qd2 seems to win a tempo.

q5: then what is White's best after 5...0-0 6.0-0-0 c6 7.f3 (another question is when to play this move; I will save it for another time) b5 or Nbd7? Does the argument above mean, that 8.h4 is superior to 8.Bh6 transposing?
Note: Black's other main idea is b5, Qa5, Be6, b4, Nb8-d7-b6 in some move order. Here it does not matter very much, if White plays 8.h4 first or 8.Bh6.