Najdorf or Scheveningen?

which one is better? what are both purposes? i like both but cant decide

u mean accelerated dragon?

For me, it's the same problem

i dunno..bur ill usually play najdorf first then e6..which transposes it into scheveningen..thus eliminating keres attack and kb5 threats

e5 also creates a strong outpost on d5 for white pieces. well done jon

then i will castle kingside and put rooks in the middle

By playing Najdorf you may avoid a pure Keres attack, but not related side variations like the ultra-sharp Perenyi attack- unless of course you answer 6.Be3 with 6...Ng4 or 6...e5.

In the end, it's pretty much a matter of taste.

the Scheveningen has more of a reputation as a positional branch of the Sicilian because the classical main lines with 6. Be2 by white lead to some heavy manoeuvring before the forces engage in full scale battle. The smallest difference in piece placement is often the difference between whether white can play a thematic e4-e5 break and launch an attack on the K-side with advantage or it is too early. The Karpov-Kasparov battles in 1984 show various examples.

The Najdorf is more of a slug fest because of such sharp lines as 6. Bg5 with the Poisoned Pawn or Fischer's old favourite 6. Bc4

Of course, such generalisations only go so far. Karpov won numerous positional battles with 6. Be2 in the Najdorf and it is possible to transpose from the Scheveningen into the ultra sharp Velimirovic Attack.

Grandmasters are more want to play a Najdorf move order to avoid the Keres Attack in the Scheveningen; Kasparov noted in one of his books that the Keres is very strong. At sub-GM level, it's unlikely that anyone is going to play sufficiently well to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the Keres and just as unlikely to know the subtleties of its theory either.

Also, transposing to the Scheveningen with 6. Be2 e6 avoids the backward pawn lines that occur after 6...e5 in the Najdorf. It was Kasparov's choice when faced with it when playing the Najdorf.

GM John Emms has written a book about the Najdorf where black plays the Scheveningen according to white's choice of options.

As Estragon notes, it's really a matter of taste.

The great thing is there is a lot of good material to study: the games of Garry Kasparov and his writings on the Scheveningen and Najdorf! So have a look and decide what you like, aided by the fantastic ex-world champion.

ps. re. the question of purposes. e4-e5 by white is often quite dangerous. The Najdorf is to some extent based on ...e7-e5 to cut out that possibility quite radically. It developed around the time when players like Boleslavsky were showing the extra central control and opportunities for counterplay down the c-file meant that the backward pawn at d6 and weak square d5 in the Sicilian weren't the positional horror once thought.

oo so thats what is called i have been using it and liked it alot but i didnt know the name so i couldnt study it...thanks!

Scheveningen is my preference, I enjoy over-extending for the attack, black nuetralizing and then launching coutner attacks. Though, it doesn't always go that well ;) but the idea of doing the Najdorf-fake before playing e6 is a good idea as well, one I commonly employ. 

enjoy white* over extending. White usually has to mobilize alot of material to attack the Schevy. This CAN be very good for black. I've even saced rooks to isolate white's queen before to ensure I have board control, and it worked out GREAT. That was an instance white played Bb5 with Qa4...which can be tricky...I trade rook for bishop + knight in those instances usually. Breaks castle for black, but easily defended. This won't apply in all games, but look for opportunities. Piece value depends on position. Not the piece itself.

It isn't. Actually it happens once in a blue moon in Najdorf/Sheveningen formations.

It's a very common motif in Dragons, but since you have refuted it,it doesn't count...