dude ill discuss anything with you after black plays 5...a6, which is technically a Najdorf, peace be upon it. it has been argued that whether black plays e6 or e5 designated whether it is the Najdorf or the Shevy, but this is an inaccuracy, for the Najdorf main line contain this move e6 a well. but why ..a6, well its a waiting move designed to help us assess what we shall do depending on what white is up to, for it must be better to see where the white squared bishop is going before committing to either e6 or e5.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't like d5. The weak square on e5 is too intimidating.
dude ill discuss anything with you after black plays 5...a6, which is technically a Najdorf, peace be upon it. it has been argued that whether black plays e6 or e5 designated whether it is the Najdorf or the Shevy, but this is an inaccuracy, for the Najdorf main line contain this move e6 a well. but why ..a6, well its a waiting move designed to hel ...[text shortened]... t be better to see where the white squared bishop is going before committing to either e6 or e5.
Originally posted by AThousandYounghi do you mean the weak square d5 and the move ...e5, well then its nothing to fear, we are Sicilian players, do we fear anything? we are like Latvian Gambit players with a little more finesse and who have nothing to fear from the endgame! actually in reality its best not to play e5 in some variations, in my measly opinion against the English attack (f3, Be3) or against the old mainline, 6.Bg5. would you like to discuss this first, the old mainline, i have gleaned one or two points from certain books that green pawn sent me, and also have been researching it for sometime now. i could go through the moves one by one, it makes it real easy to learn if you are playing over the board, and also, whites strategy seems quite direct, at least to me anyway.
I don't like d5. The weak square on e5 is too intimidating.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, sorry. d5 and ...e5.
hi do you mean the weak square d5 and the move ...e5, well then its nothing to fear, we are Sicilian players, do we fear anything? we are like Latvian Gambit players with a little more finesse and who have nothing to fear from the endgame! actually in reality its best not to play e5 in some variations, in my measly opinion against the English attack ...[text shortened]... are playing over the board, and also, whites strategy seems quite direct, at least to me anyway.
Sure, we can discuss the mainline. Dispense your pearls of wisdom.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would play in Najdorf style with e5 where possible - the scheveningen systems are ridiculously hard to play for anyone under 2400 - requires precise tactical and positional knowledge, or black simply gets mated.
Yes, sorry. d5 and ...e5.
Sure, we can discuss the mainline. Dispense your pearls of wisdom.
That said, if you want to play it, LeMoir wrote a great book called 'Essential Chess Sacrifices' which spent a lot of time on standard sacs on b5, d5, e6, f5 etc. which is great for the tactical knowledge you need, and written very clearly. Suba's 'Dynamic Chess Strategy' is a good guide to the positional handling of the Scheveningen. I'll see if I can dig out some of the LeMoir games over the weekend - club level sicilian examples that are good learning tools.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie5. ... a6 is not just a waiting move, it is played to prevent a knight getting to b5 after e7-e5, it's an attempt to improve on the Boleslavsky (5. ... e5) which is pretty drawish, Kasparov used 5. ... a6 as a way of getting into Scheveningen positions as the openings can transpose into one another, but I don't think that the Najdorf and the Scheveningen are the same opening. It's not compulsory to play a6 in the Scheveningen.
dude ill discuss anything with you after black plays 5...a6, which is technically a Najdorf, peace be upon it. it has been argued that whether black plays e6 or e5 designated whether it is the Najdorf or the Shevy, but this is an inaccuracy, for the Najdorf main line contain this move e6 a well. but why ..a6, well its a waiting move designed to hel ...[text shortened]... t be better to see where the white squared bishop is going before committing to either e6 or e5.
a shevy player shall play ...e6 as a matter of course, the najdorf player shall play 5...a6 in order to try to ascertain which system white shall adopt and as you correctly state to shore up the light squares on his queenside. In many variations of the English attack, (6.Be3, f3) these pawns are attacked, with a piece sacrifice, and white gets three pawns for a piece and three passed pawns at that. i have been following some lectures given by American Gm John Fedorovich where he outlines some of the major thematic schemes, piece sacrifice for white, exchange sacrifice for black on c3 etc etc he states that the move ..e5 leads to a more positional game, however if white shall play the Sozin (Bc4) or the old mainline (6.Bg5) then it is pointless to play ..e5 and in my measly opinion, white is better disposed to play ...e6, blocking the diagonal, that is why it is better to try to ascertain what white shall employ, before committing to either ...e6 or ...e5, is it not so?
I'm beginning to dislike the e5 lines as Black; they're very positional and Black has to work hard to prevent White from exploiting the d5 weak square. I played a Scheveningen in this year's NYS Open against 6 f4 and scored a nice win (if I can figure out how to post the PGN I will). In practical terms, e6 gets played against White's Bg5 and Bc4 lines by necessity, so the decision you have to make is how you want to handle the English Attack moves of Be3 and f3 or the positional Be2. I'm starting to lean towards e6 against the EA while still thinking that e5 is better against the somewhat passive Be2 but the latter might be subject to change.
EDIT: Too lazy to fix it for a PGN post, but here's the moves:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f4 e6 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Qf3
Qc7 9. Be3 b5 10. O-O-O Bb7 11. Nb3 Rc8 12. g4 Nb6 13. g5 Nfd7 14. Kb1 b4 15.
Ne2 Nc4 16. Rc1 Na5 17. Ng3 Nc5 18. Nxc5 dxc5 19. h4 c4 20. Be2 Bc5 21. Rhd1
Qb6 22. Bxc5 Qxc5 23. h5 c3 24. b3 Nxb3 25. axb3 Qa5 26. Qd3 O-O 0-1
Originally posted by no1maraudersure no probs i shall do the honour.
I'm beginning to dislike the e5 lines as Black; they're very positional and Black has to work hard to prevent White from exploiting the d5 weak square. I played a Scheveningen in this year's NYS Open against 6 f4 and scored a nice win (if I can figure out how to post the PGN I will). In practical terms, e6 gets played against White's Bg5 and Bc4 lines by ...[text shortened]... 20. Be2 Bc5 21. Rhd1
Qb6 22. Bxc5 Qxc5 23. h5 c3 24. b3 Nxb3 25. axb3 Qa5 26. Qd3 O-O 0-1
Thanks no1!
I always play my QN to c6. I see you went Nd7-b6-c4. This same pattern is in both the example games I posted (the second one was stolen from another thread by robbie, by the way...it's some sort of championship game from this site). Why this choice?
I also see that you didn't bothered to develop your KB and castle until the end. How did you know you could delay those moves?