The English Attack is a perfectly viable option in 2 variations of the Sicilian, and "OK", but "Not Great" in a third.
It works well against the Najdorf and Scheveningen, and is "OK" against the Taimanov.
Otherwise, the English Attack is Useless!
Now, of course, people will say the same moves can be played against the Dragon. While that same setup may be true, it's not referred to as the English Attack in that case, it's the Yugoslav Attack, and there are differences in how the play follows beyond the opening, in the mid-teens and 20s.
I generally play the English attack against the Najdorf, Scheviningen, and Classical sicilians. But there have been a couple troubling variations in the Classical I've been looking at.
This is the starting position.
There are many moves for black, the most respectable being ...Qb6, ...e6, or ...e5. The e5 lines seem to cause me the most trouble.
The thing is, in the ...e6 lines, White seems to use typical English Attack ideas, playing Be3, Qd2, 0-0-0, g4, etc, with a kingside attack. In the ...Qb6 lines, A similar plan can be used eventually, after something like Nb3, Qe2, Be3, 0-0-0, g4, etc.
But in the ...e5 lines, it seems common that white can't really go for this, or if he does, there are a couple annoyances to deal with. One of my big questions is: When is Nd5 a good idea, and when is it not?
Any thoughts? The big questions for me are...
What makes the Classical Sicilian different from the Najdorf Sicilian in the way white conducts the English attack? Does it all simply revolve around a7-a5 in one tempo, or is there more?
And when can white go for the kingside attack, and when should he settle for the Nd5 idea and a more positional game? Seemingly inconsequential changes in move order appear to change the verdict, both with my engine, and in the games database of master games, and I really don't understand why.
Thanks!