A Passive Sicilian?

Generally, the Sicilian isn't passive. But imo, something like a Scheveningen setup (which I call a turtle) looks very passive, albeit extremely solid. Let's not worry too much about theory, and take a look at the position in question:

I'm curious here, does anyone play this setup, and what does it feel like when you play it? Does it feel passive, or does if feel like you're building up potential pawn breaks? Because black can't really equalize until he does get a B- or D- pawn break.

You said that you don't want to get theoretical but you kind of have to

The reason it looks passive is that you don't know the right way to play it.

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, Black should play 4...Nf6, to pressure e4.  You might occasionally get a 5.f3, which I have played a lot, but then Black should not follow his "Open Sicilian" line and play either 5...e5 and 6...d5, 5...e5 and 6...Be6, transpose to the Accelerated Dragon, or play a hedgehog setup.

Otherwise, 99.5% of the time, you'll get 5.Nc3, and now there is no Maroczy Bind.

e6 and d6, used in a number of Sicilians, is called the Small Center.  It is not passive at all.

A "Scheveningen" wouldn't have a pawn on c4.

A "dragon" would have a pawn on g6 and fianchettoed bishop on g7.

A Maroczy bind would have a pawn on c4, like shown.

A hedgehog would have black pawns on a6/b6/d6/e6 and bishop on b7.

Your move order (playing d6) allows transposition to Scheveningen (B80), but White chose a Maroczy Bind.

I'd look into playing hedgehog with 5...Nf6 then Be7/a6/O-O/b6/Bb7 instead of Nc6 first

Here's an older game with a hedgehog vs a similar White setup to what you faced:

I might possibly get that position if I'd made a mistake in my O'Kelly and been "move-ordered" by white. As such, it's a horrible position for black and as black my attitude would be that I'd already blundered but maybe I could work out something brilliant.

White may have weaknesses on c3 and c4. Black will probably double heavy pieces on the c-file and I'd be looking for a good time to play f5 and/or e5.  I'd be expecting white to target b6 and I wouldn't be sure how to defend it. As a rule I play b5 and if a Maroczy Bind, I would have achieved compensation already and at least one pair of minor pieces would be off, easing black's congestion.

But the outcome of such a position as shown is bound to rest with white and a black win will only be the result of a position that goes wild and out of control .

Note that here black plays Bb7, which is a lot more sensible.

As ThrillerFan points out, your example has nothing to do with a  Scheveningen setup, where Black would invariably play 4...Nf6, so there would be no bind. in the Chessbase database 4.d6 is played far less than 1% of the time

As pointed out, black can play a6 and b5 or a6 and b6.  But it's passive compared with other Sicilians, except for some lines of the Kan or Paulsen, which can be similar but black gets rid of a pair of pieces.

Someone once said that playing against a Sicilian (played by me) was that it felt like "a brick wall coming at you, very slowly, but you can't stop it". That's the effect of black's centre pawns and the mobility of the f-pawn.

"It still “looks” passive to me."

This is a position where black and white both have their positional trumps, and the player who does the best job of using their advantages will win. This doesn't sound like a passive approach to me.

I mean, graphically it looks like black is hunkering down, waiting to weather the storm white will throw at him; afterwards, black will come out and fight. 

“The player who does the best job of using their advantages will win”

-Tigran petrosian was known for passive play... he wins some games. 

Im NOT saying the Scheveningen is bad... I’m saying it looks passive, since it gives white a space advantage. However, it probably isn’t, as @thrillerfan pointed out:

”it’s called a small center, not passive” (something like that)

@perpetuallypinned showed a game where black adopted that setup, and by move 18 (in my view) was pretty cramped, but white overextended (probably due to his g5 push) and black punished white for it.

So I suppose it’s more like a “bait-and-punish” type opening? Or is there something else?

SNUDOO - Why don't you read "The Sicilian Scheveningen:  Move by Move" and 6 months later, when you're done, you can admit that your assessment was wrong.

I played the Najdorf for about a year, and often times, the Scheveningen lines (6...e6) rather than the pure Najdorf lines (6...e5) and very briefly I played the "Modern" Scheveningen (No ...a6).

While I may be more of a French guru than a Sicilian expert, I have played it long enough to know that the Scheveningen is not passive what-so-ever!  Can I tell you the latest novelty on move 21?  No!  But as basic as passive vs not passive, I can assure you, the Scheveningen is NOT passive!

We have heard practically everything here... even that the Scheveningen, played by masters of passive defence like Kasparov, Morozevich, Ponomariov etc, is passive...

You can understand if an opening is "passive", "active"or anything, if you understand the fundamentals of the setup. ThrillerFan's suggestion of a "Move by Move"opening manual on it sounds fine. although it's certainly more laborous than pulling a ridiculous evaluation out of your hat.

Theoretically a game well played with

accurate and sweet

tactical attack

How you feel about an opening is very dependent on your overall positional preferences as a player; so if this 'feels' passive to you then fine, don't play it (I don't either, as I don't enjoy facing the Keres attack). However, as others have pointed out, to suggest it is objectively passive when so deeply established in theory and chosen by so many top players, is perhaps pushing it.

Hi, I actually disagree with your final sentence. This is the reason. As Pfren has pointed out, there are or have been masters of passive defence who can take virtually any position and turn it into something. But their abilities are beyond those even of the average GM, who tends to defend mainly by tactical means and who creates unbalanced positions. As I pointed out about my feeling re. the position in the O.P., I wouldn't feel comfortable with it but I do understand some principles of passive defence and I'd have a try at winning from such a position and of course, I'd have to put an enormous amount of thought into it and also depend on white to blunder badly.

BUT, many chess players are very unhappy with completely passive defence and turning it into a viable position. It more or less requires a player to play two games when s/he was expecting to play one. So, since the position as shown is, without doubt, objectively passive, since it requires a fundamental shift to make it less passive, it is perfectly in line with reality to call it passive. Activity is about immediate potential of pieces to be mobile and passivity is the reverse of that.

I know this opinion might not be to Pfren's tooth but I think it's correct.

Just let's reiterate the important point. Activity is about immediate potential of pieces to be mobile and passivity is the reverse of that. I don't think anyone could possibly look at the position in #1 and claim it's active. It's passive. Potential is not actuality.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Again, I'm not claiming the Scheveningen structure is bad, but is simply a passive position, and doesn't sit well with the stereotype of the "fighting Sicilian Defense". Of course, the potential of the black pieces (once he gets a pawn break through) will be much bigger, and black will be anything BUT passive... however, in the opening, the structure is not "active" at all.

So what I was asking was, what does if FEEL like when you play this structure? Counterpunching? Aggressive? etc.