It was the thinness of the first edition that attracted me to the Modern Schevy as something that might be easy to learn and play.  I also viewed it as a stepping stone to the Classical lines. 

The second edition is updated, but it's still only 45 pages of analysis.  About half the "book" is simply filler -- an 80 page database dump of unannotated games.  So for me, it's still basically a big "pamphlet," even if bound and not stapled.

ErictheRed wrote on 02/11/17 at 23:53:09:


Soltis, actually.  From his 1995 Chess Digest pamphlet on the Schevy.  (See the end of my first post.)

Of course, I had to update some of Soltis's analysis with Pritchett's excellent book. 

BTW, Pritchett's main recommendation is the Modern Schevy with 9..Bd7, which is also an option.

I don't remember precisely, but it looks to me like LeeRoth is recommending mostly lines from Craig Pritchett's Starting Out book on the Scheveningen, which I thought was excellent.

Here is a relatively simple, starting out repertoire for learning the Scheveningen:  1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6

I.  6.Be2 is the main line, when Black plays 9..e5 and 10..exf4.  6..Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Be3 (Move order matters, since 8.f4 allows 8..Qb6. Black can also just play 8..Nc6 likely transposing back to the text.) 8..Nc6 9.f4 e5, which has been been played by Spassky and Kasparov. 10.Nb3 is White's best, maintaining the tension.  White gets nothing from the various attempts to take on c6 or e5.  10..exf4 Kasparov's choice, aiming for ..d5.  Now there are two main lines: (a) 11.Bxf4 Be6 12.Kh1 d5 equalizing. Play usually goes 13.e5 Nd7 14.Nxd5 Ndxe5 15.c4 Bg5, when Black is fine. (b) 11.Rxf4 Be6 (11..Ne8 with the idea of 12..Bf6 is also thought to be equal)  12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne5 is equal.

II.  6.Be3 Be7 7.f3 is the English Attack, which Black can meet with a quick ..d5. 7..Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 when 9.g4 is intended to discourage 9..d5 because of 10.g5. The main line is 10..Nd4 11.Qd4 Nh5 which, according to Pritchett, is fine for Black.  If Black doesn't like this, he can instead play 9..Nd7 10.0-0-0 Nde5 attacking the f-pawn.  The other line is 9.0-0-0 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5, when Black is also thought to be fine.  10.Be2 is the latest fashion here and is supposed to retain a White edge, but, if so, it's still a game with plenty of play left.

III.  6.f4 Nc6! (6..Be7 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.e5 is annoying) 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qf3 is the Suetin Attack.  Black can play 8..e5!? 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.f5 Rb8 with ..Qa5 to follow.  The alternative:9.Nf5 Bxf5 10.exf5 Nd4 11.Bxd4 exd4 12.Nb5 Qa5 13.c3 dxc3 is fine for Black.

IV. 6.g4 is the Keres Attack when 6..h6 7.h4 Be7 was suggested by both Pritchett and Soltis -- I prefer 7..Nc6 -- when 8.Rg1 can be met by 8..d5 and 8.Qf3 can be met by 8..h5 with complicated play in both instances.  White can also play 7.Rg1, 7.h3 and 7.Bg2.  There is too much to cover here; suffice to say that that, while these lines are generally easier to play from the White side, Black can hold his own (the theoretical verdict seems to shift every few years from +/= to = and back again).  If you don't like the Keres, you can play a set-up with ..Nc6/..d6/..e6, and learn the Sozin/Velimirovic in case of White's Bc4.

V.  6.g3 can safely be met with a quick 6..Nc6 7.Bg2 Bd7! Then 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.a4 0-0 is fine for Black.

VI.  6.Bc4 aims for a Sozin or Velimirovic, but Black can cross up White by playing ..Na6 instead of ..Nc6.  For example, 6..Be7 7.Bb3 0-0 8.Be3 Na6.  The Knight turns out to be well-placed on a6 since it can go to c5, hitting the White Bishop and e4 pawn, while defending the Black e6 pawn.

VII.  6.Bg5 usually hopes for a Rauzer or Najdorf.  Black can instead play 6..Be7 7.f4 h6 8.Bh4 when 8..Nxe4 liquidates into an equal ending and 8..Nc6 keeps some life in the game.   

P.s. Stop listening to what a bunch of people on forums think and start thinking and playing for yourself.  When you start to experience problems, then go looking for solutions.  But for now it seems like you want to play the Sicilian Scheveningen (one of the most highly regarded of openings depending a bit on move order), why would you not? 

I also think that a player needs to be well enough versed in chess culture, positional play, tactics, opening play in general, to have the confidence to solve some opening problems over the board.  You don't have to have all of the theory figured out before you go into a game; of course where you draw the line between just winging it and preparation will depend on many factors.

When I was rated just below 2200, I was bored with my normal opening repertoire, and in four consecutive games against 1.d4 over two tournaments I played 2 Tarrasch Defenses and 2 Benko Gambits against people all rated between 1900 and 2180.  I'd never studied any real theory (except for from the White side, as I'm a 1.d4 player), and I scored a perfect 4-0.  I was engaged, excited about my positions, and willing to work hard at the board.

Start playing what you want now, be confident in your ability to play chess and solve the problems as they come, both during the game and after (when you go back to analyze your games).

Yeah maybe this is a bit too much to ask. It just seems that when playing those closed French positions or those Rubenstein structures in the Caro-Kann that there are fewer tactics in the opening and the game is more about how both sides develop the pieces at least until the middlegame. It's true that sometimes White can sac a pawn in the French or play some kind of Ng5 idea in the Caro-Kann but that stuff is rare.

Maybe I'll give it a try anyway though.

I'd say I've been one of the top two fans of PSC on this board, but it sounds as though you're expecting too much from the book.

Incidentally another pawn-structury book I liked (Dynamic Pawn Play in Chess by Marovic) had illustrative games with perhaps every major system against the Schevy, albeit it's pretty old.

One thing I wonder is what "class player" refers to here -- the term covers a lot of ground.

good luck with that