Black’s Strategies in The Najdorf

Many view it as a theoretical behemoth. Take, for example, the infamous game https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1385670. This is a line that has been analyzed to death and if you've prepared it and play it, chances are that it will fizzle out to a draw. Sure, every now and then a new theoretical development may come up for black. No, it won't change the objective evaluation of the position but in a practical game, good luck to your opponent in figuring it out. But conversely, what if white is the one to come up with an innovation? What then? This arms race of opening theory is never-ending and as amateurs, it is practically impossible (and highly impractical) to enter such lines.

What do we do then? Do we avoid the Najdorf? Do we play the Berlin? There’s no doubt that white has a number of tries against the Najdorf (far more than against say the Dragon or Sveshnikov) but understanding the Najdorf conceptually can greatly reduce the theoretical burden. To best understand why we play the Najdorf, let us have a look at the Scheveningen Sicilian which arises after the moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6. In particular, I want you to focus on black's pawn formation. Now here is what white will do: Castle long, play f4, play g4. Threaten all sorts of sacrifices with Nf5 Nd5 see the games https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1529653, https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1047821. You get the picture. These games are neither the most famous nor the most brilliant nor the first to showcase such ideas and yet white took down their very strong opponents in both cases. Strategy and pawn structure are of little relevance and what is certain is that one side will be slaughtered. I should mention that black has their fair share of counterplay and Kasparov himself preferred these scheveningen structures to the Boleslavsky structures I play, but such a position is incredibly risky and not in line with my philosophy. Other ideas for white include the sacrifice of a piece on b5, often ending up with interesting imbalances such as 3 pawns for a piece. Sacrifices on e6 are also on the cards.

However, the reason all these aggressive ideas are available for white is because of two reasons. 1: The knight on d4 is centralized. 2: The long-term threat of f5 induces structural weaknesses for black (black is forced to play e5 due to the overwhelming pressure on e6 to which white can respond with Nf5). Imagine we had instead played e5, forcing the knight back to b3. However, immediately playing e5 runs into concrete issues hence the waiting move 5.a6. And that, my friends, is why we play the Najdorf. The Najdorf is characterised by the Boleslavsky structure, with pawns on d6 and e5 added to the typical open Sicilian configuration. Though the d5 square is a hole, unlike the Sveshnikov, it is concretely difficult for white to exploit it as black can play Be6 and Nbd7 rather quickly. Attempts to play for the d5 square do exist but against the Najdorf they tend to be less potent than against the Sveshnikov. If black can achieve the d5 break under semi-reasonable circumstances, Black's kingside majority is already somewhat more relevant than White's queenside one but white players are rarely so compliant as to allow this. Moreover, Black's pieces will become active and white will start to regret any f-pawn pushes as their king is weakened. In general, there are three major structural transformations that can take place. The first is black achieving the d5 break.  Here's the position without any other material on the board 8/1p3ppp/p7/4p3/8/8/PPP2PPP/8 w HAha - 0 2. It is worth mentioning that the presence of the pawn on e5 means that white can never push e5 in response to d5 as would be the case in many scheveningen positions. The second is the transformation when white pushes f4 and black takes exf4 given by 1p3ppp/p2p4/8/4P3/8/PPP3PP/8 w HAha - 0 2. The third is the infamous kings Indian structure which arises when white plays Nd5 and black takes on d5 with a piece, forcing white to take back with a pawn.8/1p3ppp/p2p4/3Pp3/8/8/PPP2PPP/8 w HAha - 0 2.

Speaking of white's attacking strategies connected with a kingside pawn storm (think the English Attack with 6.Be3 as popularized by the attacking masterpiece https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1015909 or the Fischer-approved 6.h3 system), my general approach is to nip the attack in the bud with h5, forcing white to seek play by other means (typically putting a knight on d5 and seeking a strategically complex middle game in a kings Indian structure). A move such as h5 may seem weakening, but really, there's no real way of targeting it. The only disadvantage is that the g5 square is weakened permanently but practice has shown that this isn't too relevant either. I should take this moment to point out that white has ways of trying to force a Scheveningen structure with 6.Bg5 and 6.Bc4. but against the former, I have found a way to get our desired structures with 6.Nbd7 (playing 7.Qa5 against both 7.f4 and Qd2, with the idea of playing e5 and reaching my desired structures)   while the latter tends to lead to good versions of the Scheveningen for us.

But the question arises: what if white tries to checkmate us despite the fact that the knight is on b3 before we can stop any sort of kingside expansion with h5? Remember that the Najdorf is at its absolute best when white goes for some unsound sideline (something extremely common up to FM level). We will respond to white's non-standard play with standard moves. The plan of combining Be3, Bd3 with castling short and a kingside pawn storm is one such strategy. Central to black's development scheme is the placement of the c8 bishop. Take, for example, the position 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Be6 10. Qd2 Nbd7 11. f4. Whenever f4 is played, the bishop would love the b7 square but in practice, this is often hard to achieve. However, if black can respond to the f4-f5 push with Bc4, then black tends to be perfectly okay, with ample queenside play. Even if light-squared bishops are traded, black tends to have excellent counterplay, simply because white cannot effectively make use of the d5 square despite optics suggesting otherwise. It often happens that white’s knight is sidelined on b3, allowing black enough time to organise their counterplay. Move it over one square to c3 and the picture changes drastically. For more insights on this, see the game: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008416. Moreover, when black can't transfer the bishop to c4 in response to the f5 advance or can't develop it to b7, the prospect of playing exf4 and transforming the structure (the second structural transformation) that way remains an option, highlighting the stability having a pawn on e5 brings to our position. In these ensuing middle games, white gets the d5 outpost while black can use the e5 square. White's pawn on e4 is permanently weak but so is our pawn on d6. This is seen in the line 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Be6 10. f4 exf4 11. Bxf4. Notice how after this transformation white can never attack on the kingside. An important point to remember is that in such a structure, black is somewhat surprisingly, very happy to transform it with 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Be6 10. f4 exf4 11. Bxf4 Nbd7 12. Nd4 Ne5 13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. Bxe5 dxe5. Despite being doubled, the e6-e5 duo provides excellent control of the d5, f5, and d4 squares, seriously restricting white's knight while black can plonk the bishop on d4 and play on the queenside with Rc8 and maybe b5 b4. Another important theme is straight up sacrificing the d6 pawn, provided that it enables the trade of dark-squared bishops. Take a look at the position 2r1r1k1/5ppp/p3bn2/1p2n3/4P3/1NN4P/PPP1B1P1/3R1R1K w - - 2 1, for example. White has the open d-file, the open f-file, the move, and a full pawn. Despite these factors, black's control of the e5 square, much better bishop, play on the c-file (restricting the pair of queenside knights) provide ample compensation. I must mention though that this idea is exceptionally rare and not something I have ever seen in a practical game (it's something I discovered while playing around with an engine).

There is a common misconception that black's goal in the Najdorf is to give checkmate. Black's goal is to use their queenside trumps (the open c-file, central duo, a6-b5 expansion, prospect of putting a knight on c4, attacking b2, often straight up threatening to win a pawn) all in conjunction with the d5 break. If white plays some non-standard line and tries to deliver checkmate ala the Scheveningen, they are in for a rude awakening because black's queenside counterplay is more potent than it seems at first glance. It is important to note that in such a line, black shouldn't generally castle as doing so not only puts our king in a poor spot but also means that after playing h6, if white plays g5, we can never open up the h-file. Another important resource is responding to a premature kingside attack with g4,h4 with Nh7, forcing white to play h5. In the ensuing positons, black can very easily blockade the g5 square. Though I haven’t used this resource in any of my own games, it’s always a good idea to know.  In the gamehttps://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/105243658985?tab=review, it looked as though my king was under heavy fire but I proved that is was the opposite. Notice how after 21. Nf6, white has no kingside attack and already, white's king is more exposed than ours. Let me share another game of my own (interestingly against the same opponent) where white faced a counterattack once more. https://www.chess.com/game/live/105246082017.

Another important resource is the exchange sacrifice on c3 which is not only effective in opposite side castling scenarios but is often a purely positional resource. If Black manages to collect the e4 pawn and cripple white's queenside structure then there is typically more than enough compensation for the exchange, even in queenless endgames/middlegames, particularly when a white pawn is on the f5 square. How do we know this? By standing on the shoulders of giants of course! Check the model game https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1419940. I am proud of my blitz effort which I have featured here https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/97306764983?tab=analysis&move=48.

Meanwhile, if white tries to transform the structure to a kings Indian structure, it may just so happen that black turns the tables and attacks on the kingside. I followed in the footsteps of Dominguez in the following blitz game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/104251792217. Compare it to the play of the Cuban-American grandmaster in https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1633821. Sure, the execution was completely different but the principle was the same; black's dark-squared bishop coupled with the kingside majority was far superior to white's light-squared bishop and queenside advantage (in my game there was none). It's worth mentioning that in such structures, black likes to trade dark squared bishops and play on the dark squares due to the favourable colour complex. Opposite coloured bishop scenarios where black has a dark squared Bishop also tend to be favourable. Here are some model games by Fischer https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044653&kpage=3 and http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044438&kpage=1.

I hope this article contains some valuable information about my favourite opening. I haven’t analysed the model games in depth but hope that this will provide the readers with the basics of Najdorf Strategy. If my approach to chess openings and chess strategy in general appeals to you, you may contact me for coaching here.

If there is sufficient interest, I may revamp this article by annotating every game in it and adding some additional content on specific lines. In particular, I intend on covering the sacrifices on e6 and b5 in depth and intend on providing my personal Najdorf repertoire. Another theme I have wanted to cover is the prospect of playing the d5 break at the cost of a pawn but with the gain of the bishop pair and a favourable structural transformation but perhaps this is best explained in the future update.