Answers.Body: <p>Probably the biggest difference is the availability of an early <code>g2-g4-g5</code> bayonet attack by White. As I recall, this attack is very nearly a bust to the traditional Schevenigen move order. However, with Black's <code>... a6</code> in the Najdorf order, he has more freedom to play <code>... e5</code> in response to White's flank attack, without losing time or fearing an annoying bishop check.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-18T21:54:15.500Z
Answers.Text: The particular thing that enables the Keres Attack in the Scheveningen, which I think you are talking about (playing g4 before supporting it with f3), is that Black has played ...e6 and so is no longer covering g4 with his light-squared bishop.
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-20T21:26:06.420Z
Answers.Text: Yes, that is actually the main difference and the reason Kasparov and many others opted to transpose to the Scheveningen via the Najdorf move order: the latter avoids the Keres attack.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pablo S. Ocal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-08-20T17:45:02.130Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-08-20T18:09:00.740Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-08-20T18:09:00.740Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evan Harper
Body: <p>I would like to compare the Sicilian Scheveningen</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>with the Sicilian Najdorf</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Please note that I am only concerned about positions where the two openings share a common pawn structure; meaning Black has pawns on e6 and d6 and not on the positions in the Najdorf where Black has played an early <code>...e5</code>. In the lines where these two openings share a common central pawn structure, what are some of the characteristics that differentiate the two openings regarding piece placement and Black's minority attack on the queenside with <code>a7-a6</code> and <code>b7-b5</code>? I am mostly interested in contrasting different middlegame plans and tactics based on piece placement such as the knight at b8 going to either d7 (typical of Najdorf) or c6 (typical of the Scheveningen) as an example.</p>
  
Tags: <strategy><tactics><sicilian-defense><middlegame><najdorf>
Title: Sicilian Scheveningen versus Najdorf: What are some of the characteristics that differentiate the two openings?
ThreadText: # Sicilian Scheveningen versus Najdorf: What are some of the characteristics that differentiate the two openings?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-08-18)
  
  I would like to compare the Sicilian Scheveningen
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6
  
  ```
  
  with the Sicilian Najdorf
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6
  
  ```
  
  Please note that I am only concerned about positions where the two openings share a common pawn structure; meaning Black has pawns on e6 and d6 and not on the positions in the Najdorf where Black has played an early `...e5`. In the lines where these two openings share a common central pawn structure, what are some of the characteristics that differentiate the two openings regarding piece placement and Black's minority attack on the queenside with `a7-a6` and `b7-b5`? I am mostly interested in contrasting different middlegame plans and tactics based on piece placement such as the knight at b8 going to either d7 (typical of Najdorf) or c6 (typical of the Scheveningen) as an example.
  
  **Tags:** strategy, tactics, sicilian-defense, middlegame, najdorf
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2012-08-20. Score: 3
  
  Probably the biggest difference is the availability of an early `g2-g4-g5` bayonet attack by White. As I recall, this attack is very nearly a bust to the traditional Schevenigen move order. However, with Black's `... a6` in the Najdorf order, he has more freedom to play `... e5` in response to White's flank attack, without losing time or fearing an annoying bishop check.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: The particular thing that enables the Keres Attack in the Scheveningen, which I think you are talking about (playing g4 before supporting it with f3), is that Black has played ...e6 and so is no longer covering g4 with his light-squared bishop.  
  > **username_3**: Yes, that is actually the main difference and the reason Kasparov and many others opted to transpose to the Scheveningen via the Najdorf move order: the latter avoids the Keres attack.  
  
  ---
  
  