Is sicilian scheveningen appropriate to use below 2000 level?

Is sicilian scheveningen appropriate to use below 2000 level?

As long as you take the time to learn the ideas and not just the moves you can try it

I think fundamentally playing main lines at any level is not only ok, but recommended. The main reason for this above all others is that time spent learning big mainline openings is not wasted, where as your time spent learning garbage is.

LethalLarry, I don't think it's a matter of main line vs side line.  I would always recommend a main line to players.  However, the Scheveningen, whether it be the Keres Attack, or allowing certain lines of the Najdorf and in return avoiding the Keres (i.e. would you rather allow 5...a6 6.Bg5 or 5...e6 6.g4?), is a very complicated opening, and may not be best for lower rated players.  Most players I know below 2000 are always focused on pawn structure.  The Scheveningen, and many other Sicilians, require going outside the box with the pawns.  It's not about pawns structure.  It's about piece activity.  You have to be willing to take, say, doubled f-pawns in many Sicilians.  I, speaking as one who is roughly 2050 to 2060 FIDE, 2042 USCF, can tell you that when I ask a 1700 or 1800 player "Did you consider this move?", more often than not I hear things like "No because it isolates my pawn" or "No because Black can give me doubled pawns".

I would recommend 1...e5 over 1...c5 to those below 2000.

Never said "magic" occurs at 2000, but I would never advocate the Sicilian to say, a 1600 player.  It's a mistake if you ask me!

Shhh! Stop destroying the conforting feeling of superiority held by us 2000-level players! We need it to fall back on when we get chewed up by the masters!

The short answer is no.

The Scheveningen requires knowledge of several different systems to play it well. If you are really going to spend all that energy learning just one opening, it shouldn't be the Scheveningen. There is an excellent book on the Scheveningen by Lorin D'Costa, but even with that, it would require an expert (+2000 rating) understanding of the game.

Play moves you understand, not moves that are fashionable among GMs.

As I'm writing this, Magnus Carlsen is playing 1.e4 c5 .2Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.h3? against someone rated 2644 and making it look good. Carlsen is showing us that we don't need to be beholden to reams and reams of arcane theory. At least, not in a live game.

The Scheveningen is the thematic structure fundamental to understanding the Sicilian.  Studying the Scheveningen will provide a stable platform from which you can later branch out later into the Najdorf, Taminov, and Kan variations.  You can start studying the Scheveningen well south of 2000.

to progress its important to learn many ideas and openings and structures especially popular ones, Mickey Adams said he would be a stronger player today if he had learned the open sicillian as a younger/lower rated player

I disagree. The Scheveningen doesn't require the knowledge of many other Sicilian lines to play; rather, those other lines require knowledge of the Scheveningen.

Najdorf? After 6...e6 or 7...e6 it becomes a Scheveningen with the Keres temporarily ruled out. Kan? Any ...d6 transposes to a Scheveningen structure. Taimanov? Ditto. O'Kelly? Against the Maroczy the Scheveningen structure appears as you head toward the hedgehog formation.

Other than the Dragon and the Sveshnikov/Kalashnikov lines, every mainline Sicilian requires knowledge of the d6-e6 structure that appears in its purest form in the Scheveningen. Telling under-2000s not to play the Scheveningen is basically saying that Sicilian lines in general are too difficult for people under a certain rating...how ludicrous does that sound?

Let me tell you guys a secret. NO opening is appropriate for players under 2000. So maybe I'm over my head playing the Schev. So is my opponent.

Yes, but it's not the easiest choice

It's a matter of taste. I'm 1600 (maybe even below) but I mostly win with the sicilian schevenigen and najdorf. I lost when my opponents used anti-sicilian system like the alapin, closed, rossolimo, etc.

I know. The popular response will be "Sure, play what you like!" I'm learning to play the piano. I am sure there are compositions that are not appropriate for a novice such as myself no matter how much I enjoy listening to them. Same with chess.

I firmly believe the Scheveningen is just about the worst mainline Sicilian to learn for players under 2000.

The Sicilian Dragon, while tactically messy, is strategically fairly easy to understand. John Nunn said that Dragon players need to calculate six impossible sacrifices on c3 before breakfast. But once you know that, and look at some of the endgames, you can play the Dragon fairly well.

The Sveshnikov is also relatively easy to learn how to play.

The Sicilian I would recommend first is the one that was played early in the history of the opening: the Paulsen/Taimanov setup with e6. Black strives to play d5 and the lines are much less likely to transpose into super-sharp Keres Attacks and Najdorf messes.

Other openings that are perfectly playable for Black below 2000 strength include the Spanish Marshall variation, French Classical lines (to avoid some of the wildly complicated Winawer lines) and even the Caro-Kann.

Well said, Estragon. The maths analogy may make more sense to some people.

I've been told the Scheveninguen structure is taught to serious young players in Eastern countries. It's also used as a tool to develop promising juniors by some good coaches in Paris.

We're talking about young people with at least an intermediate level (ie. 1700 rather than 1300) here, so it's probably not the best choice for a beginner However, it looks like a good pick for many talented youngsters, provided they get some qualified help to navigate the intricacies of this structure.

This is also the defence Kasparov played extensively as a child !

Scheveningen was the FIRST opening I learned.  (Yes, even before The Ruy.)  It provided "Sicilian Basics." 

In "Masters of the Chessboard" Richard Reti, one of the leading hypermodern players who was a contemporary of Nimzovitch, stated that beginners should always play open games whenever possible (specifically 1.e4 e5) before moving on to semi-open games (ie CKD, FD, SD etc) and to learn semi-open games before moving on to closed games.

So to try and answer your question, I think the answer depends not on the players exact rating but more so on their experience and how well they know the principles of open games. As usual Estragon and paulgottlieb have good advice here, although I tend to agree with Estragon more so than paul.

Finally I do think it's a good idea to try playing whatever opening you're trying to learn from both sides of the bd  - entering a thematic tnmt is a good way to do so.

One thing i've experienced in scheveningen is that white often throws down his kingside pawns even after he's castled kingside at your castled king.  It might not be so great for white, but black needs to know how to defend.  I lost a few positions as black this way when i was not prepared so well.  I am not sure if this is relevant to you; however, I play sicilian kan, so there are a lot of lines that transpose to a sort of scheveningen or hedgehog, but now a days I am willingly transposing to taimanovs to avoid this since it is less likely to draw and will more likely be active in my opinion.

Not for the amateur, or most masters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IydArFYvvak