Eric,
To be honest, I just don't like 3.e4.
I'm looking at it, staring at it, and I don't know...
It appears to me that white just helped black by playing into the pin and I have to ask - why?
Then there is also the case that Kasparov played it in rapid chess so how seriously should we take it? I'm not sure.
Personally, I tend to feel more comfortable with strategic ideas so I had to look at 3.Bf4 (simply adding pressure on e5).
Re: your line, 3. e4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nc6 5.d5!
I tend to go for development, especially so early in the game but I'm wondering how bad is 5...Ne5 6.Bb5+ (?)
If 6...c6 7.dxc6 Nxc6 and then I think black can go with g6/Bg7, possibly bring the bishop back to d7 (if attacked by h3) and then just plays chess with 0-0, Rc8, etc.
Regarding your comment on black's play, yes, I realise it's a sound opening - annoying
I was hoping to find, at least, a strategic reason to why it's less than favourable and I still wonder if that's completely incorrect? Maybe there is a way to make black's play, well, unnatural.
But, I do have to add, I don't like (that's personal) the classical Pirc. I prefer to play f4 lines and then break with early e5 (not the Austrian).
So I suppose that's the key point for me. I'm just looking for a way to make the game more comfortable and less interchangeable.
I'd still prefer 3.c4 and 3.Bf4.
I'm not sure that black can allow: 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 Bg4 3.Bf4 Bxf3(?)
Then I like 4.gxf3 and I think the most thematic will be 4...Nd7 to which it's hard to decide what white should do with so many lovely options
I can imagine some people will prefer 5.Bh3 or 5.Rg1 but I think I'll like 5.e4(!!?).
I realise the computer doesn't like it, oh well, I was looking at: 5...e5 (thematic) 6.Be3 g6 (the only move that doesn't fully suck) 7.Qd2 (eyeing h6) 7...Bg7 and then 8.c3.
So I realise it's not as dynamic but honestly, I'd feel that the options are profound... well... in my opinion.
For instance: A, we have the centre. B, we have the half-open g-file and if black follows with 0-0 we have h4-h5 too. C, we also have either Bc4 or Bh3. D, with the chain from b2-->d4 I'd feel ok with 0-0-0.
So, ok, maybe a "different" way of looking at it because everyone likes "ambitious" play but I think that strategically, it makes sense.
Ludde,
I'm not sure why 6.Qe2 is "very" dangerous.
Frankly, I think that 4...e6 is a really silly move and I can't imagine a serious player playing it even if playing this off-beat line as a cheapo, or for whatever reason.
Also, in my DB, Nc6 is played more than e6.
But re: Qe2, I think that the simple a6 stops it and I'd probably prefer Nbd7 since Qb5 is met with Rb8 and followed by c6 and black also has some minor tactics and threatening to win pawns too with Bg6.
I'm sure white is better of course but I'm not completely sure that these are the most critical lines. Maybe, I'm just not sure yet.
I guess, with a move like Qe2 it has to be fully justified by tactics and I'm just not sure it's that called for. It seems to be a rather critical approach but have we exhausted all other normal options?
Just as pointed out by TN it is specifics of the position that makes 6.Qe2 dangerous. The tempo gained by threatening Qb5+ makes the whole sequence of g2-g4 and h3-h4 possible. This is because after 6.g4 Bg6 7.h4? drops the pawn on e4, but with the Q on e2 white has time for these moves.
I think that the original idea behind 4..e6 is to play a delayed French defence with the bishop outside the pawn-chain. It was fairly popular in the 80s as I recall it.
So much for the theoretical side of things. If you feel uncomfortable with 3.e4 there is a good alternative in 3.c4 as pointed out in several places in the thread. 3.Bf4 on the other hand feels unlikely to be a try for any real advantage (after all what is that bishop doing on f4? hitting the rock on d6?).