Scheveningen vs. Najdorf

What are some reasons why one would play the Scheveningen rather than the Najdorf, given the Keres Attack and the flexibility of the Najdorf?

I think it's basically a matter of taste and I see a couple of reasons for the Scheveningen guy:

- he likes to put his knight on c6;

- he wants to develop Bf8 and castle faster rather than spend time with ...a6;

- he doesn't like the Sozin Attack against the Najdorf.

Hard to go wrong with the Najdorf.  a6 is a brilliant waiting move.  On the other hand there's not much better than playing white in the Sicilian and not having to prepare g4 with f3 first.  Such a great feeling.  Too bad I almost never play against the Scheveningen. 

Reasons to play Scheveningen over Najdorf

-e4 players are more prepared for Najdorf and will always have a pet line(backed up by likely computer prep in OTB format)

-As long as you know the correct line against keres attack, its no big deal, certainly dealing with aggression from white shouldn't be a problem for the 1...c5 player, regardless what variation you prefer.

-More theory in Najdorf and its constantly updating...almost DAILY

-6.Bg5 isn't good against the Scheveningen like it is Najdorf

-Easier to learn the positional ideas in the Scheveningen as opposed to Najdorf, the position of the e pawn is a huge difference in the position, and committing to putting it on e6 avoids the d5 hole in many of the best Najdorf variations(you can play Najdorf move order and trasnspose to scheveningen, but in some instances its just better to play 6...e5 instead of 6...e6, like Amsterdam, Adams attack, Zagreb, etc.

-Euwe played it first and he's underrated.

-ITS A COOL OPENING THAT NO ONE PRONOUNCES CORRECTLY

this is an interesting question. the scheveningen has been declining in popularity recently. Kasparov loves this opening though.

The thing is there are other openings that possess all the same perks that have been mentioned here but don't give white a free pass to do whatever he wants. Kasparov stopped playing it after suffering through the Keres attack one too many times.

I think what really makes the the choice between these two openings is if you prefer to face the Keres attack or 6.Bg5 in the Najdorf. And maybe also which of these openings you prefer to face the english attack from. In my opinion the rest of the openings (Be2,f4 ,g3 ) are approximately equal in my opinion. And the scheveningen is a more practical opening than the Najdorf. The Najdorf is incredibly theorethical.

I can pronounce it correctly but i cannot play it ! ;)

It is clear to me from your post that you have spent considerable time, effort, and study on the Sicilian, especially the Scheveningen and Najdorf Variations.  I too have spent some time on these subjects. 

My conclusions are different.  First, regarding facing 6.Bg5.  My favorite way to defend against 6.Bg5 is 6...e6 7.f4 Qb6 the Poisoned Pawn Variation.  Of course in order to play the Poisoned Pawn I had to memorize 400+ lines that are riddled with tactics years ago.  Today I know those lines cold.  I always enjoyed takng my opponent into deep water, confident that the worst that could happen would be a draw if he knew as much theory as I did.  If not, he was in trouble.  I became fascinated with the Poisoned Pawn.  I discovered that what it was all about is the question:  Has Black violated the general principle of going pawn grabbing with his Q in the opening?  White tries to prove to Black that he has violated that principle and  defeat Black for his transgression.  Black responds, "...come and get me..."  This theoretical debate has been played out in thousands of games.  The concensus is that it is a draw.

Concerning facing the Keres attack.  I play an altered move order that avoids it by transposing into the Najdorf/Scheveningen.  White then is unable to play the feared Keres Attack, the big brother variation of the English and Perenyi Attack.  If White chooses to play the English Attack his early 6.Be3 has restricted the type of anti-Scheveningen system he can adopt after Black plays 6...e6.  If you would like to know what anti-Scheveningen systems White has restricted himself from becasue of his early 6.Be3, please let me know. 

Can I just ask why? Where's the difference?

It all centers around the move 5...a6.  In the Scheveningen it is usually not played especially not as early as move 5.  The Nadorf is defined by this prophylactic move (5...a6).

Google a bit and you will get the answer.  If you can't find the answer please let me know.

If you have the French or Benoni on your repertoire, then is the Scheveningen a more logical variant then the Najdorf.

Look on pg. 107 of Pawn Power In Chess by Hans Kmoch.  I am reasonably certain that you will be able to draw your own conclusions regarding the design of your opening repertoire.

@Yaroslavl: I don't have that book. Please explain to me what you mean.

BTW, I play Najdorf and Benoni. Always have thought about it to change to the Scheveningen and the French, but never performed the change due to lack of knowledge of the Keres attack.

 I play Najdorf and Benoni. Always have thought about it to change to the Scheveningen and the French, but never performed the change due to lack of knowledge of the Keres attack.

In his book Hans Kmoch writes that almost every opening results in 1 of 6 characteristic pawn formations (structures)

My experience has led me to design my opening repertoire so that I play the Najdorf Scheveningen style.  Playing the Najdorf this way enables you to avoid the Keres Attack.  In his book this opening is 1 of the 6 characteristic pawn formations known as the Jump Formation. 

Please explain to me what you mean.

You will have to purchase the book in order to understand.  I will tell you that in his book Chapter 8 Benoni Formations pgs. 219-276 he details how to play both sides of this 1 of the 6 characteristic pawn formations known as the Closed Formation. 

How does Kmoch's book compare to Soltis's Pawn Structure Chess?

Kmoch's book is confusing.  Soltis's Pawn Structure is excellent.  I have the 1995 edition.  Beware of the way Soltis equates the Caro and the Slav.  Enjoy the extensive coverage of the open Sicilian/English.

#maroczyunbound

The following review is from customer reviews on Amazon Books about Pawn Structure Chess.  Please note the sentence highlighted in bold red.  I have read and studied the book myself.  Without reading Pawn Power In Chess by Kmoch first, Pawn Structure  Chess by Soltis is not nearly as instructive. 

Regarding the section highlighted in bold blue,  it is necessary to read Pawn Power In Chess in order to understand the Maroczy Bind and the difference between facing it as Black with a Boleslavsky Wall pawn structure as opposed to facing it without the Boleslavsky Wall set up.

The following review is from Amazon customer reviews about, Pawn Power In Chess, by Kmoch.  The section that is highlighted in bold red is very important to note.  The reviewer definitetly recommends reading Pawn Power In Chess first

 

86 of 91 people found the following review helpful

Excellent book, but be warned...,August 18, 2001

By 

Russell Reagan

 

This review is from: Pawn Power in Chess (Dover Chess) (Paperback)

The standard line that you hear about this book is that it is excellent despite it's odd jargon. This book is aimed at a player who is already familiar with more basic ideas in chess such as tactics. I have talked with one person who was rated 1800 and his rating jumped to over 2000 almost overnight after reading this book.
Here's the truth about this book. This book will give you a firm grasp of how to play the pawns in chess, and it will give you ideas about what your plan should be based on the pawn structure. The bad reviews that other people have given this book is because they weren't serious about digging into this book and finding the treasures that are in this book. Having said that, that is the main drawback of this book. It is a little bit advanced. If you are a beginner you would be MUCH better off buying a book about tactics and doing tactical problems.
The other knock on this book is that Kmoch invents some of his own names for variuos themes (such as calling doubled pawns 'twins') which was a little bit annoying to me, but it isn't too bad once you get used to it.
Overall this is a very good book. It's not an easy read, but if you are past the basics in chess, but not yet a master, and you seriously want to improve your chess, then get this book, sit down, dig through the material, and STUDY this book. If you study this book and really understand what it's saying about pawn play, it will improve your game dramatically. I know exactly how some of the other posters here feel, because I felt that way the first time I read this book. I felt that this book was a waste of my time, but then I asked another strong chess player what he thought about it, and he said this book helped his chess game more than any other, so I sat down and made myself read it and understand it, and sure enough, he was right.
So bottom line, this is a good book, but it's not really fun to read. If you want to read a chess book for enjoyment, read Searching for Bobby Fischer. If you are serious about improving your game and you are willing to do a little hard work, then this book is for you.
Also, Soltis's book, Pawn Structure Chess, covers much of the same material, but it classifies typical plans based on pawn structures, and you will get a lot more out of that book if you read this one first.

The Keres attack is great if you're Paul Keres. Most chess players are not, and thus this is not a reason to avoid the Schven. Most class players are rightfully reluctant to shred their kingside pawn structure so quickly, since doing so requires a considerable bit of accuracy in play.

In other words, tossing up g4 cause that's what Paul Keres did means nothing if you haven't booked up on all of black's responses...because in positions like this, a mistake is usually painful.

Start Najdorf and transpose into scheveninngan, thats what a lot of super GM games seem to be doing.