9080 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
As an aside I've done rather well since taking up the Sicilian again. I believe my record is six wins and two losses in OTB games. One of the losses was to an opponent who outrated me by 400 points.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 avoids the Keres and you can still reach Scheveningen lines. Of course, you allow other options for white with that move order.
I think you mean 2. ...e6. Of course that IS the start of the scheveningen leading to the Keres' attack on move 6.
Nope, he means what he said. Reaching the Schevy from a Najdorf move order keeps control of g4 for an extra move, and avoids the Keres.
No. g4 will be played on move 6 regardless. I should know, I've played the Scheveningen literally a bazillion times, I know all the ins and outs of it. I have a book on it. Though some sources list 2. ...e6 as a "standard" way to get to the Scheveningen, the more standard way is d6.
Besides, after move 5. ...e6 or 5. ...d6... whichever the case you will end up in the exact same position. If you don't have both of those moves out by white's move 6, it is NOT a Scheveningen. That's my main point: it's NOT a Scheveningen if it's not set up like that by move 6. You cannot "enter the scheveningen" and avoid the Keres' attack....
2. ....e6 has nothing to do with avoiding the Keres' attack, it's some kind of Taimanov or whatever if you do that.
Yes. 5...a6 followed by 6...e6 reaches a Scheveningen, avoiding the Keres, but allowing 6.Bg5.
That's not a Scheveningen, that's a Najdorf. That is 100% a Najdorf and 100% not a Scheveningen. I don't know what the hell you think a Najdorf looks like otherwise. The whole point of the Scheveningen is it allows the Keres but 6. Bg5 is very tame.
In two days on the forums, I have read about a dozen posts by you.
None are correct, all are full of this sort of nonsensical and impotent delusional self importance, and about half have the additional ironic kicker of having you lay into a poster who knows what he's talking about by telling him that you're the one who knows what he's talking about.
Jesus is right. Earn that inflated rating much with your little engine?
ETA: NM, I see you're Irish. Your kind are always idiots. Back to it.
Racism is not appreciated, as much as I agree with everything else you wrote.
Well, I do consider you to be a bit of an incendiary poster, generally not well-mannered or polite, disparaging of others' opinions and chess knowledge, overconfident in your own, etc. I could give examples and such but that would be a waste of time better spent not responding to someone I couldn't care much less about. Just read through your posts, you should hopefully see what people are referring to.
I don't agree with the comments about using an engine.
And I'm half Irish.
After 1.e4 c5 2Nf3 e6 3d4 pxp 4Nxp Kasparov often used 4...Nc6 5Nc3 d6 to reach a Schevenigen, especially in younger years. White can still play 6g4 but its not the Keres attack proper, no Nf6, and black can try Ng-e7-g6. Black has to be prepared to play old main line of Taimanov after 5Nb5 but that is thought to be quite ok for black these days, it usually results in a hedgehog position with Na3.
Where did I disagree that 5...a6 is a Najdorf? Oh, I see, you were just assuming stupidly.
The Scheveningen can definitely arise from a Najdorf move order, which you conveniently ignore, as after 6.Be2 e6 a direct transposition to a Scheveningen main line is likely, or 6.Be3 e6. The move order doesn't change the fact that you get the same position, it just affects earlier possibilities.
Yes, 6be2 e6 is a classical scheveningen, again used by Kasparov because he knew Karpov played 6be2.
Lot of disinformation and comic egotism in this thread. Kept mentioning Kasparov because he was biggest expert playing scheveningen ever. If look at his matches playing Karpov, in first game of first match allowed Keres attack. Survived ok, but after that started avoiding it using all the move orders going, including 1.e4 c5 2Nf3 e6/ 2...Nc6.
When does the Ruy Lopez ever "transform" into the QGA?
2. ....d6 2. ....d6 2. ....d6. And black moves 2. ....d6 instead of 2. ...e6 mainly to prevent e5, it's not to prevent a super early g4, which black should be happy with.
They are transposing to the "Classical Scheveningen" tabiya, but they are not the Scheveningen. The reason it's called a classical scheveningen is because it was originally generally reached through the Scheveningen move order and that's how it comes out in the database, that it transposed to the classical scheveningen position. You won't see that terminology coming up in articles that someone played the "classical scheveningen" if they played the Najdorf for the past twenty years. Similarly, if someone plays the Ruy Lopez but it transforms to the queen's gambit accepted (something that surprisingly happens regularly in some variations), nobody will say they played the queen's gambit accepted.
I wasn't going to comment at all because it's clear that this poster is obstinate in his error.
Yes, you got it exactly right: You can reach the Scheveningen by transposition! You then got it exactly wrong, by claiming it's not a Scheveningen because it's a transposition!
Lorin D'Costa wrote a book about the Scheveningen, and he deals with numerous games that reached the Scheveningen by a Najdorf move order.
It's still the Scheveningen.
Let's try something really simple:
1.c4 is an English. 1...Nf6 is still an English 2.Nf3 e6 is still an English BUT, after 3.d4 d5, we've transposed into a Queen's Gambit! If you want to find out about that position, get a book on the Queen's Gambit, not the English!
I play the ruy queen gambit lopez accepted all of the time. It's for those players who cannot decide if they like d4 or e4 positions better.
Well, you do avoid the Keres attack using the Najdorf move order, only to meet 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.g4 (AKA the Perenyi attack). The Perenyi is extremely theoretical, and mostly irrational- the resulting positions have no inner logic, and they don't allow the slightest mistake- both colours involved.
Either learn the Sheveningen, and learn how to deal with the Keres, or play the Najdorf. Mixing them up is clearly a job for professionals- either players, or book authors which sell their marketing trick cheap.
Yes but everyone would agree that they played the English. Like how we say Fischer played the English against Spassky even though he then transposed into a QG position. ...Nobody would say Fischer opened with the QG. ...
Fischer did play the Queen's Gambit as White against Spassky, he didn't play 1.d4.
Take a look at any list of the games played in the 1972 match. They will give the ECO code, and often the English language name for that opening.
In game six, they played the QGD Tartakower
In game 12, they played a QGD Orthodox Defense
and in game 15, they played another QGD.
Fischer did have white against Spassky in a Symmetrical English, too. That occurred in game 8.
Larry Evans' book on the Fischer-Spassky match agrees with this.
This is how Wikipedia categorized the openings:
And regarding playing in a Scheveningen theme tournament:
Theme tournaments start at an agreed-upon position. It doesn't matter how we reached that position, all games start from that position.
I do agree with this. I'm not terrified by the Keres Attack and the move order recommended by Lorin D'Costa avoids many popular sidelines while allowing white to play the Keres.
From a practical perspective, White has more challenging options than the Keres.
Personally I never liked the Sheveningen because I never felt comfortable as Black against the classical Be2/Be3 setup.
Highest possible rating
by Daniel_Pi 3 minutes ago
3/15/2014 - Speed Chess Tactics
by biat 9 minutes ago
No sound on opponen'ts move
by Citadel_7 35 minutes ago
Carlsen vs Anand rematch
by 444aki 44 minutes ago
A draw with a Candidate Master!?
by Jeekeat 45 minutes ago
How should I use tactics puzzles at chess tempo for maximum benefits?
by Shadow_Bishop 49 minutes ago
Why is the Smith-Morra Gambit so popular?
by Likhit1 53 minutes ago
Sicilian dragon vs french defense vs open game
by Shadow_Bishop 53 minutes ago
by philipp88 54 minutes ago
by ramrao2000 56 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!