Computer analysis labels the Perc Defense an inaccuracy.

I played the Perc Defense in this game (it's a new opening to me so I'm trying to learn it) and when running it through computer analysis it immediately labeled it as an inaccuracy. Is it just because it's not played often, or is there something wrong with the analysis? Is there a way to fix it? I'm sure that it's often quite annoying for Perc players.

I also don't know if this was just a one-time thing, like maybe if I run another Perc Defense game through the analysis it will come out differently?

Anyways, here's the game: https://lichess.org/0lyKwSDD/

To be fair Kasparov's immortal destroyed the perc

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478

It's because the engine rates it as a significant centipawn loss. The King's Gambit is also either a inaccuracy or a mistake, I don't remember.

Computers will find a way to crush you either you play 1...d6 or 1...c5, but they'll find a shortest and easiest path in the first one, that's why it's a innacuracy (in computer terms).

I never liked percs for the black pieces since I find it kinda passive. But you shouldn't be too concerned about this as you're playing blitz against humans... or not.

Stockfish labels the Pirc Ufimtsev 1 e4 d6 as an inaccuracy because it does not understand openings. It recommends the French 1...e6, which Magnus Carlsen calls incorrect. Nobody knows anything for sure about openings and computer programs understand even less than humans.
Of course a computer program crushes you if you play it, but it crushes you as well if it takes the black side.
The game Kasparov-Topalov was brilliant, but it is nowhere near a refutation of the Pirc-Ufimtsev. Topalov could have played differently at various occasions.

very well said tpr

Actually "Perc" is an inaccuracy. Because his name was Pirc!

Btw, I had an King's Indian game and I reversed g6/Sf6 and that's why it was 1/0/0 instead 0/0/0...

Yes, Vasja Pirc (Slovenia, 1907 - 1980), pronounced Pirtsh.
Also Anatoli Gavrilovich Ufimtsev (Kazachstan, 1914 - 2000).

The Pirc is considered inaccurate by computers, but the computer often changes it's mind once you go deeper into the position. But even if the computer finds a line that is consistently good for White, then it's still quite hard in practice. The reason is that the suggestions from the engine are often extremely concrete in this opening. This means having one game-plan on where to put your pieces isn't enough. Every move of black needs a different response from White, for reasons that are not obvious at first sight. Not to mention all the sacrifices that can happen, always difficult for computers to find and evaluate correctly.

So yes, the opening might be inaccurate, but in practical play that is very difficult for white to prove.

I like the Pirc. It's a nice opening to destroy your opponent if they aren't taking good care of the center. I like openings in general where I give my opponent a slight advantage, for instance, a big/good pawn center. Then just keep attacking the strong points of his position and they will either fall or keep intact. I also like the h5 lines as black. Just creating more weaknesses but giving white no possibilities to play Bh6. They aren't good, but I like them, so I play them (please don't hate).

I don't think letting the engine decide what opening you should play is a good idea in general. The opening should be chosen by time control. If you play shorter time controls, more fun openings, like the Pirc, or Kings gambit, Halloween gambit, etc. For longer time controls classical openings are recommended. The longer time control games have a higher amount of seriousness than blitz/bullet stuff.

Just play what you like, what the engine thinks doesn't really matter that much in the opening. Scandi, kings gambit, pirc are all inaccurate according to the silicon monster. But fun for us.

BTW, I don't really know what I'm saying anyway so don't take me too seriously. I'm an amateur.