The English attack vs Najdorf siccilian

At my club I have a number of sicilan Najdorf play who... *cought*cought* forced me to rethink and reanalise my line against najdorf. I do need to improve.

I use English Attack which is pretty much a system  - this setup works against many a sicilian.

But as a gather painfull experience, and after my work of today - tell me weather I am wrong - the English Attack isn't such a great weapon against najdorf sicilian.

First problem - black has no kingside weaknesses - unlike say sicilian dragon. White has to create some, which I am unsure how exactly ( making to f6? making to g6? saccing to open a line?). In my successful games, Black was so helpfull to play unnecessary h6?

Second - black can stall attack by mean of Nh5.

Third - white lags in development, yet he attemts to attack. His white squared bishop stays long on initial square, with no good squares to go to.

Fourth and most important - black attack is plain faster. Luckily, it does not seem crushing.

As I browse databese, I am still to find a high level game in English attack vs Najdorf, where white rips open black King's position and mates him. The games tend to follow the pattern: both sides attack, black attack is much faster,  with precise play white fends it off, after which game reaches endgame, which if White has done everything right, should be better for white. 

Do I understand it right? Is English attack not really a pawn storm race, but more a mean to provoke black to create weaknesses? And can someone post ( or name) a textbook example of how white should conduct his attack?

You are mostly wrong ,English attack against the Nadjorf is were it was first developed, and for a long time the most used line against the Nadjorf at elite level. Loads of games by Anand for example.

I believe what the OP is suggesting is completely false. The English Attack often rips apart the Najdorf early in the game at high levels for quick wins. Obviously actual checkmates and quick wins (under 25 moves) are rare at GM level just as with any opening, and the defending side usually scrambles some sort of last ditch endgame together, however inferior. Just because an endgame is reached doesn't mean the game isn't decided in the opening for all practical purposes.

I think OP may be experiencing the effect of people booking up against an opening with their pet defence. You'll experience the same thing against the King's Indian Defence or even Dragon, where it performs better than it has any right to because peope are so booked up. It's a religion for some people. You can try to avoid it by an anti-sicilian or you could give kingside castling a try (I'm sure 6. Bg5 would be just the same thing).

Thank You for your posts.

I definatelly don't claim that English attack is bad, it is a very reputable line. But admittedly, i expected an easier play for white. Making me wonder whether there is a better way to tackle najdorf.

If anything is a problem is my insuficient understanding of the openig. I have arleady found an improvement. Still, i think ( correct me if i am wrong - i am veryfing my newly aquired understanding after a daylong of analyses. ) that in English Attack, game dynamics is different then Yugoslav attack in Dragon. White has to accept, that black pawns will home in faster and will start demolishing King's shelter earlier. However, it does not mean, that black's attack is more dangerous - white can ward it off and only then procede with his own.

BTW. The amount of theory on English attack astonished me. The "book moves" alone end deep into middlegame. No wonder i had poor results after just skimming a handfull of games.

I don't play the 6. Be3 English Attack against the Najdorf... I usually play 6. Bg5 like this :

Murder on the h-file - Chess Forums - Chess.com

or occasionally 6. Bc4 followed by a Velimirovic instead of a Sozin.

But I've defended against the English Attack as Black.

Chess: veeyaar vs blueemu - 90890754 - Chess.com

Thank you Blueemu Your games are very instructive, as always.

In Your game against veeyaar I admittedly don't understand two moves. Don't hold it as a critque, I only would like to know.

First why did You play 6.e6 ? Sure, the move itself is perfectly ok and standard, but four moves later You played 10. e5 so the pawn has gotten to e5 anyway, but spending two tempos instead of one.

And why 8.h6? I thought such moves should be avoided, especially when pawn storm is expected.

And why You don't play 6.Be3? Is it merely because You have invested Your work in the old mainline of 6.Bg5 or do You actually hold it (slightly) better?

Why 6. ... e6?

First, because I enjoy playing Scheveningen-type formations more than I enjoy Opovcensky-type formations. At our level of play, the most important task in the opening is to reach an early middle game in which we feel comfortable and confident. The Scheveningen does that for me.

Second, I find that the wider variety of plans available to both sides in the Scheveningen tends to make my opponents hesitate before committing themselves. And this is often worth more than the tempo I spend switching over to an Opovcensky formation... if I choose to do that.

Third, Scheveningen type formations are perfectly playable against the English Attack... they're just not particularly fashionable. Which is a plus, because your opponent is less likely to be on familiar ground.

Should 8. ... h6 be avoided? Certainly an h6 followed by an early 0-0 should be avoided, but I had no intention of castling early... and in fact, castled on move 27.

I play 6. Bg5 both because I have a lot invested in the line (I know some of the variations out to a ridiculous number of moves) and because I enjoy those crazy positions more than the drier but more popular English lines.

Also... I don't feel that the 6. Bg5 line has been exhausted of interest. It's true that sometimes lines are abandoned because we've cropped the grass about as short as our teeth are long, but I don't feel that's the case here. I suspect that 6. Bg5 simply became unfashionable. Chess Grandmasters are as fashion-conscious as teenage girls.

@1

"the English Attack isn't such a great weapon against najdorf sicilian." ++ It is the main line now.

"First problem - black has no kingside weaknesses"
++ The point is to chase away the defender Nf6 with g4-g5.

"Second - black can stall attack by mean of Nh5."
++ That is a poor square; The knight on the rim is dim.

"Third - white lags in development"
++ No, white leads in development. 1 e4, 2 Nf3, 3 d4, 4 Nxd4, 5 Nc3 are all developing moves. 1...c5, 3...cxd4, 5...a6 are no developing moves. So white has better development but black has a better pawn structure. So white must attack. In the open Sicilian white either wins quickly, or not at all.

"His white squared bishop stays long on initial square, with no good squares to go to."
++ Bf1 is active where it stands. Likewise in variations with O-O Bc1 is active where it stands.

"Fourth and most important - black attack is plain faster."
++ No. It is equal.

"a high level game in English attack vs Najdorf, where white rips open black King's position and mates him." ++ That is the problem with high level games: attack and defense balance. Chess is a draw. You can only checkmate if one side makes a mistake. At low levels that is common and checkmate attacks from both sides can succeed.

Hi

These lines are very concrete. Post the game, and people can give you better feedback.

Hey

Have you tried maybe playing 6.h3 or 6.Rg1? These are less known and score pretty good for white

@12

6 h3 g6 or 6 Rg1 g6 blunt the idea of 7 g4.

6. ...e6 is not the Scheveningen at all. Though it may transpose to positions traditionally associated with the Scheveningen the Scheveningen is e6 played on the 5th move. John Emms wrote a popular book Play the Najdorf: Scheveningen Style with the Najdorf being played with e6 - it's still a Najdorf, it is not a Scheveningen.

You don't play the Vienna and get into a well-known traditional King's Gambit position and say you're playing the King's Gambit. No, you're still playing the Vienna and if you play 5. ... a6 you're always playing the Najdorf. You avoid 6. g4 but allow 6. Bg5 is how I've always understood it. (6. Bg5 still works against the Scheveningen but gets move-ordered from the most critical lines and black does very well).

You seem focused on nomenclature rather than concepts. Arguing over whether or not a particular label applies to a specific sequence of moves isn't chess... it's stamp collecting.

Where did I claim to be playing a Scheveningen? I used phrases like "Scheveningen-type" and "Scheveningen center". if this confused you, I suspect that the issue does not lie with my choice of terminology.

I found your post very interesting it's just your use of the term Scheveningen (not always saying Scheveningen type or Scheveningen centre) threw me off.

Ah... if I wasn't clear, then that would be my bad.

Yes, I meant Scheveningen-type. I'm not so concerned with specific lines because I don't play fashionable lines anyway.

My own distinction between those ... e6 vs ... e5 lines is based not on specific continuations but on the distinction between the rigidity and structural strength of the ... e5 lines vs the double-edged (sometimes explosive) flexibility of the ... e6 lines.

My own preference is for the latter. But it's just a personal preference. I can easily understand if someone prefers the former, though.

OP simply does not know enough about the sicilian. Lets look at the more modern main line

Blacks position has weaknesses all over the queenside and typically play goes with Nb6 Bxb6 Qxb6 Na5 Rc8 Nc6 Nxd5 Nxe7 Nxe7 Qxd6 and white has a slightly better endgame

@blueemu

How do you handle the keres attack? the lines are often quite forcing and white typically does well without much problem.

Black's doing fine there. Yes, that Na5-c6 plan is something to watch out for, but it can be either stopped or rendered relatively toothless. For instance. 13 ... Nb6 14. Bxb6 Qxb6 15 Na5 Rc8 and if 16 Nc6?, black has 16 ... Nxd5 Qxd5 17. Qxc6.