|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-11-05 | | tanginamo: <cu8sfan> "The Sicilian Scheveningen", authored by Kasparov & Nikitin. early 90's i believe. it should be on amazon.com. |
|
| Mar-11-05 | | waddayaplay: I read a Kasparov book on the King's indian -- just full of lines. Is the Schevinigen book better? |
|
| Mar-11-05 | | Stevens: <cu8sfan> there is a DVD out shortly in the Mr Kasparov series on the sicilian. I think it focuses on the najdorf but i'm sure it covers these lines too. |
|
| Mar-18-05 | | Volmac: <cu8sfan> If you want to play the Schevenigen and also be able to meet the 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 lines with confidence then GM Adorjan - Black is OK! - is the book for you. It is a true masterpiece. |
|
| Aug-25-05 | | chess man: I play the Scheveningen 1/2 the time when I play the Sicilian. (The other 1/2 would be the Najdorf.) What I prefer in the Scheveningen compared to a lot of other Sicilian variations is that Black makes logical developing moves that aren't risky and the fact that he gets an extremely solid position that can repel any quick attacks that White might create. |
|
Aug-26-05
 | | WannaBe: Where/when does the separation between Schev & Najdorf appear? It seems you can easily transpose Schev->Najdorf. |
|
| Aug-26-05 | | AdrianP: <Wannabe> The dividing line is not exactly clear, but the main difference is that the Najdorf is characterised by Black playing e5 and the Scheveningen by Black playing e6. Further, in the Najdorf, Black will always play a6, whereas in the Scheveningen, sometimes ...a6 is unnecessary. |
|
Aug-26-05
| | WannaBe: <AdrianP> Thanks. |
|
| Aug-27-05 | | Backward Development: I just joined Wikipedia and finished an article on the Scheveningen variation. I would appreciate any feedback or criticism regarding it, since it is the first article I've written for them. The link is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicili... |
|
| Aug-27-05 | | OneBadDog: I love this opening. I wish that more of my White opponents would be man enough to play against this line instead of punking out with the c3 or the Closed Sicilian. |
|
| Aug-28-05 | | euripides: BD Nice article. Two comments: 'Positional pawn sacrifices abound for both sides and the theory is very highly developed, thanks to decades of research by top class players such as Viswanathan Anand, Veselin Topalov, Boris Gelfand and countless others.' Kasparov surely deserves some credit for making the Sheveningen one of the central battlegrounds of modern chess, as in his matches with Karpov and Anand. The early history might be interesting to look at. The Sheveningen was widely tried out at a tournament in Sheveningen in the early 1920 (1922, I think) and was at that time thought dubious partly because I think Black used to aim rther too rigidly at d5. The Soviet players began to explore it seriously in the 1930s. |
|
| Aug-28-05 | | euripides: Two notable early examples are Lasker vs Pirc, 1935 and Lasker vs Capablanca, 1936 |
|
| Aug-28-05 | | Backward Development: Of course Kasparov developed the theory in the KarKas matches, but I didn't want to be redundant and repeat his name again. He was the first GM I mentioned in the beginning of the article. I wanted to acknowledge as many GM's as possible. |
|
| Sep-03-05 | | jcmoral: Hi! The move order here is different (I thought he was going for a Kan) from the one given above but I guess it belongs here because of Black's pawns on e6 and d6. [White "jcm"] [Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"] [ECO "B80"]
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 e6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 a6
5. Nc3 Nc6
6. g3 Qc7
7. Bg2 Nf6
8. O-O d6
9. Be3 e5
10. Nf5 (Is this bad? I thought if I lost the game it would be because of this move. Turns out the exchange of pieces and the resulting pawn on f5 help me in the end.) Bxf5
11. exf5 Be7
12. Qd2 Rb8
13. Ne4 Ng4 (What do you guys think of this move?)
14. Bg5 O-O
15. h3 Bxg5 (I guess he just overlooks 16.Qxg5 winning the knight.)
16. Qxg5 1-0
|
|
Feb-22-06
 | | James Demery: Backward Development: I just read the article you wrote for Wikipedia. Very well done. Well researched and well written. I wish I could play that defense as well as you wrote about it. |
|
| Feb-22-06 | | AdrianP: <cu8sfan> I haven't got "Play the Najdorf Scheveningen Style" but I've heard good things about it. Anything by Emms comes close to achieving both clarity and completeness. |
|
| Jun-11-06 | | ClubplayerGOLD: Me vs. a patzer:)
1.e4, c5 2.Nf3, Nc6 3.d4, cxd4 4.Nxd4, Nf6 5.Nc3, d6 6.f3, Nbd7 7.Be3, Nc5 8.Qd2, d5 9.Ndb5, Qa5 10.exd5, exd5 11.Bd4, Be6 12.Qf4, Nh5 13.Qg5, Nf6 14.Bxf6, h6 15.Qf4, Na6 16.Be5, Bd7 17.0-0-0, Bc6 18.a3, Rh7 19.Bc7, b6 20.Re1+, Be7 21.Bd3, Kf8 22.Rxe7, g5 23.Qd6, Nc5 24.Bxh7, Bxb5 25.Bg6, Nb7 26.Qf6, Be8 27.Rxe8+, Rxe8 28.Qxf7# You should have seen the look on this guy's face. White as a ghost. I wasn't even really calculating, I was just thinking which moves would scare this guy to tears. Much Respect,
-------------
|
|
Mar-18-07
 | | Ron: This line: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. f4 a6 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. fxg5 Nd7
click for larger view has occurred before, even between grandmasters. After this position there have been various moves for White; but from the database at chesslab, 0-0-0 was only played once, and that player eventually lost. But that is probably due to the differential in playing strength between those two players.
I submit that 0-0-0 is just as good if not better than the others, e.g. 11. 0-0-0 Ne5 12. Qe2 (perhaps new) hxg5 13. Bg3 f6 14. h4 gxh4 15.Rxh4 Rxh4 16. Bxh4 ..... |
|
| Mar-24-07 | | Troglodyte: Can someone tell me something about this position after <12... Nxe3>, Who is better here? Is this a usual variation? Are there any other games in the database with this position (not being a premium member, I can't check). I thought I was winning but a few moves later I was fighting for dear life and was lucky to find a drawing combination. What's a better plan for Black? [Event "Fast SC for New Members 3/1"]
[Site "SchemingMind.com"]
[Date "2007.03.09"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SuperSilje"]
[Black "Troglodyte"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B80"]
[WhiteElo "1697"]
[BlackElo "1794"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[WhiteTeam "Norway"]
[BlackTeam "United States"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "NOR"]
[BlackTeamCountry "USA"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. Qd2 b5 8. f3
b4 9. Nce2 Nbd7 10. g4 Ne5 11. O-O-O Nc4 12. Qd3 Nxe3 13. Qxe3 Qa5 14. Kb1 Bb7
15. g5 Nd7 16. h4 Be7 17. f4 Qb6 18. Bh3 Nc5 19. Ng3 d5 20. exd5 Bxd5 21. Rhe1
O-O 22. f5 Bd6 23. fxe6 Rae8 24. exf7+ Bxf7 25. Qg1 Qa5 26. Nb3 Nxb3 27. axb3
Be5 28. Nf5 Bxb2 29. Kxb2 Qa3+ 30. Kb1 Bxb3 31. Nh6+ Kh8 1/2-1/2 |
|
Mar-24-07
 | | tpstar: <Troglodyte> A more common move order for White is 7. f3 Opening Explorer although there's lots of transposition and overlap. But compare 7. f3 b5 8. g4 b4 Opening Explorer versus 7. f3 b5 8. Qd2 b4 Opening Explorer because the data swings more in Black's favor. There's only one game with 9. Nce2 Nbd7 D Josenhans vs S Goregliad, 1990 as after 8 ... b4 9. Nce2 it's far more common for Black to try 9 ... d5 or 9 ... e5 Opening Explorer and here's a famous game in that line = Kramnik vs Topalov, 2005 In your game, looks like 13 ... Qa5 & 17 ... Qb6 & 25 ... Qa5 spent valuable time without furthering your Queenside attack. I also wonder about 21 ... 0-0!? as it's rather late to castle and White's Pawns are way advanced over there. Your King might have been safer in the center. However, I don't play the Black side of the Sicilian at all. =) |
|
| Mar-24-07 | | Troglodyte: Thanks <tpstar>. I guess 10... ♘e5 isn't as good a move as I thought. I played 13... ♕a5 with the idea of eventually putting my ♗ on the a2-g8 diagonal and force Nb3. What other plan do you suggest? 17... ♕b6 was mostly to threaten 18... e5(!) and also I was planning the ♗d6-♗e5 manuever. It probably was too slow though, maybe 0-0 or Rc8 would've been better. What's wrong with 25... ♕a5(!)? It seems to force atleast a draw. I don't see any other alternative. 21... 0-0 -- I thought my position would have been completely passive if I kept my King in the center, it looked completely hopeless. I even considered playing 0-0-0 but it didn't look much better. When I played 0-0 my only goal was to attack the Queen-side and do whatever I could to put my ♗ on the a1-h8 diagonal. What plan do you suggest for keeping the ♔ in the center? |
|
Mar-25-07
| | tpstar: <Troglodyte> After 19. Ng3:
click for larger viewWhite has space on the Kingside, Black has space on the Queenside, but the center is quiet. Therefore Black's King looks safe and sound in the center. Instead of 19 ... d5 cracking open the center, I think Black should proceed with 19 ... a5 & 20 ... a4 storming White's King. Compare to our reference game D Josenhans vs S Goregliad, 1990 where a similar attack was very successful (and Black's King lived in the center). After 21 ... 0-0!? White soon won a Pawn, and I would bet that's when the computer evaluation changes to White's favor. Your plan of trading the Nc4 for the Be3 was good, and then c5 becomes a great outpost for your other Knight (even preventing sacrifices on e6). Since every tempo is crucial, maybe Black would improve by avoiding ... Qa5 yet and instead playing 13 ... a5, then 14 ... Bb7 and wait on the Queen. I suspect we'll be seeing more of these early ... b5 & ... b4 lines against the English Attack. |
|
| Mar-26-07 | | Troglodyte: Ok, thanks. |
|
| Jul-22-07 | | ganstaman: So I'm thinking of trying out the Scheveningen even though I'll never say it or spell it right (except for this once!). But I was a little concerned about how transposable it can be -- too many move orders (compared to the French which I was previously playing, when every game was simply the same). So I'm trying to find the downsides to each move order to see what I'd like best. I'll eventually raid the OE, but until then, any thoughts? 1) 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 <d6> 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 <a6 and 6...e6> --------- though not bad for black, invites the 2. Bb5 variation 2) 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 <Nc6> 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 and 6...e6? ---------- also allows 2. Bb5, and maybe knight doesn't always want to go to c6, but instead b8-d7-c5 is it? 3) 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 <d6> 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 <e6> ----------------- allows 6. g4, the Keres Attack 4) 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 <e6> 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6, and I get a bit lost, but I think this somehow makes it there? |
|
| Nov-01-07 | | thatsmate: I've been trying to study the master games in the Scheveningen to better my play, but I keep on running into this line that I dont understand:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6 7.a4 Nc6 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Re8 Everything makes perfect sense- and then white plays Kh1 on the eleventh move. Why would white just toss away a tempo like that? I realize that white is a little bit vulnerable on the a7-g1 diagonal, but his bishop looks strong there. Is it to open the g1 square for his rook? I would follow that, but I never seem to see a game where the masters play Rg1. What happens if white does not play Kh1, and continues the attack with Bf3/g4? Can black punish that line clearly? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
