Sicilian Scheveningen

Hello Everyone,

     My question today involves the Keres Attack (6. g4)

I want to play this opening so that I can say scheveningen.

I've encountered the Keres Attack about 20 times and once got burned in a tournament game with some poor play on my part, missing a knight fork or my queen and king.

It depends on what White plays. If 5...a6 6.Be3 e6, then 7.g4 is still very dangerous, and known as the Perenyi attack. But Black has other options, e.g. 6...Ng4.

After for instance 6.Bg5 e6, 7.g4 doesn't make much sense.

And so on.

Is it still Scheveningen then, or is it Najdorf? Assuming Be3, e6 is a (one of the) standard next move(s) in Najdorf English attack.

Extract from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence,_Scheveningen_Variation

Question of move orders and the Najdorf variation

The Keres attack puts Black into a rather defensive and potentially dangerous position. For this reason, many advocates of this defense tend to play the Najdorf Variation move order and then play 6. ... e6, transposing into the Scheveningen. The most prominent example of such a preference for the Najdorf move order was seen in World Chess Championship 1984 where after game 1 when Kasparov had difficulties in the opening, he never allowed the Keres attack and finally switched to the Najdorf move order. One should note that the Najdorf move order while eliminating 6. g4 still gives White additional options, and g4 is still a possibility a move after.

Much modern analysis of the Scheveningen is under the rubric of the Najdorf. In fact, many books exploring the Scheveningen today have Najdorf in the title. This, continuing the line of thinking in the English section above, is technically the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian defense with the very popular English attack. Chess.com gives, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3, the following probabilities for a win or draw by black with these responses at 6. ...xx: 6. ...e5 (59%); ...e6 (56%); ...Ng4 (61%); ...Nc6 (57%); ...Nbd7 (52%); ...g6 (58%); ...Qc7 (48%); ...b5 (44%), and the weakest: 6. ...h6 (40%).^[8] Note that the "Modern" Scheveningen only covers lines without an early ...a6 from Black. The "Classical" Scheveningen includes the early ...a6. This distinction is important in choosing books to study, as titles covering recent games will often leave out the ...a6 early line, which can still become quite interesting and complex, and still advantageous for Black, even with the powerful English. Many modern chess software programs, such as HIARCS, still play ...a6 early on, despite the fact that "modern" often precludes the line in definitive analysis, depending on the book. Vlastimil Jansa is one of the earliest GM's to extensively teach, and use, this variation, and his classic books on the topic are rare and in high demand.^[9][10][11]

Black has been holding his own against the Keres attack lately.  For example Anand has played the Scheveningen last year and was successful against the Keres attack.  By playing 5..a6 Black retains control over over g4 for an extra move and that makes all the difference.  White has tried 6.Be3 followed by 7.g4 the Perenyi Attack, but Black has done very well against it.

You don't really think that the opening is the only thing that decides a chess game, do you?

because he did not play h4!?

Well, in the Perenyi Atk, it is easier for Black to start counterplay on the opposite wing with ...b5 at some point as he has already gotten in a6.

Additionally, by getting in ...a6, Black has prevented a possible Bb5+ which can occur in the Keres.

Also, Black can consider replying to 7. g4 Perenyi Atk with 7...e5 (rather than 7...h6), an idea recommended by Ftacnik in GM6.

Not to mention that in the Perenyi, White has already moved out the bishop to e3 and must spend another tempo if he wishes to move it to say g5.

@lavarook, good points.  The Keres attack is really what's made me question playing the Scheveningen, at least for CC chess.  I like the more positional game that the Scheveningen usually offers, and likewise I don't want to get into the super theory-heavy Najdorf.  For those more experienced players, can you pretty much be able to count on transposing to a Scheveningen if you play 5. . .a6 ?

No, Bg5 is a critical line against the Najdorf and does not transpose, Be3 and e6 also do not generally transpose after g4 becoming a Pernyi attack.

but what about back into a sheveningen in general?

Agreed.

Just from glancing at that opening, it looks like the first 5 moves were played by a 2000+ player and then the 6th move was played by a 700 rated player.

If after 5...a6, White plays 6.Bg5, it is a Najdorf. The super-theory heavy poisoned pawn variation occurs in this line as well as the theory heavy Old Main Line (6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7....).

However, there have been new ideas found in the 6.Bg5 variation such as 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.f4 Qc7 8.Qf3 h6!? 9.Bh4 g5!?, a pawn sac analyzed in GM6 by Ftacnik. Compared to the Old Main Line and Poisoned Pawn, this has less theory.

Also, Black is technically playing a Najdorf after 6.Bc4 e6. Except for 6.Bg5 and 6.Bc4, you will be able to get a Scheveningen after 5..a6 (I consider the Perenyi Attack as part of the Schev)

Although you could get to Perenyi Attack through a Schevenigngen move order it almost never happens. After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 a6 White would almost always play 7.g5 (instead of 7 Be3).   The Sozin attack is pure Schevenigngen for instance  1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc6 d6 6.Bc4 a6 was played in Te Kolste - Bogoljubow, Balden-Balden 1925, long befoe the Nadjdorf was invented. 

It is true that if you play a Nadjdorf move order, you do have to prepare something for 6.Bg5.  There are however a lot to chose from. Black scores well with the poison pawn variation 6..Qb6 which was favored by both Fisher and Kasparov.  You can transpose to Richter-Rauzer with 6...Nc6 which is solid, you can play Polugevsky, the Brown System, or you can play the old main line.  Black has to know much less theory than White in the 6.Bg5 Najdorf, since he can chose one system while White has to know them all.  One thing you don't have to worry about is White flinging pawns down the King side since his Bishop on g5 will get in the way; although it amazing how many non-masters playing White try this.

Funny, I am the exact opposite.  I have done well against the Keres Attack in CC play (drawing much higher rated players) but was scared of it OTB.  I generally followed the lines given by Marovic in his 1991 book An Active Reperoire for Black.

Another reason though that I prefer playing a pure Najdorf (6..e5) rather than the Schev is that I would rather not deal with as many  thematic and complex highly tactical Nxe6 sacs that may come as a surprise.

Pure Najdorf players only have to worry about possible Nxe6 in the 6.Bc4 e6 or 6.Bg5 e6 variations. Often white ends up getting 2 pawns for the piece with a strong attack. In CC though you can just use an analysis board so its not as much of a big deal.

(Even though it may not be objectively sound all the time, it still has the shock factor OTB and its hard to defend OTB)