I notice that Ftacnik, who has a bit of a background in the Scheveningen, is on the black side of 6. g4 h6 7. h4 Nc6 8. Rg1 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Bb5 Bd7 today at the world senior team championship. I wonder if, in the case of 7. Rg1, he was going to repeat the ...g5 approach he played in 2022. (Also played by Spassky against Karpov in 1982.)

Regarding that English Attack line with 9...d5, I recall that 10. Be2 was considered slightly better for White in a NIC Yearbook article quite some years ago. That was also the case in the yellow ECO reboot about 4 years ago.

I'm sorry but I don't think I've ever laughed more at something in a chess book, it's the last part after the comma that really gets me.  I have another book by Gormally that I've never liked much either. 

Excerpt from: https://forwardchess.com/sample/the-scheveningen-sicilian-revisited
  
I think a lot of the reason for the poor results and reputation of the Scheveningen is due to the gimmicky h6-h5 on move 8. If black moves 8. ... d5 instead white gets even slightly less winning percentage than the Najdorf,  The computer evaluates this as 0.4 as opposed to 0.7 for h6-h5 at depth 47. But it's finding a practical way of winning that seems to be the problem for black in this line. 

If you look at the few Scheveningen games in recent years by the top players on lichess' masters database they almost invariably play 8. ...d5. Duda scored a win for it against Nepo in 2018 St. Petersburg - but beware that was a blitz game as some of these games are.  

According to lichess masters database also there are ways for white to go wrong among people who aren't that well booked-up, for example 32% play 9. Bb5 and black scores almost equally well against that. The big problem seems to be finding winning chances for black after ed, which is what all the top players are playing nowadays. Black gets an isolated d-pawn and the winning percentage becomes very low. I've looked at chesstempo at various rating levels also to confirm the results look the same - black's big problem is in getting a win.  

Maybe the Scheveningen would be a good option if you would be happy with a draw but don't want your opponent to know that as he might associate playing into the Keres with riskiness trying to win. You could also hope for the opponent to play 9. Bb5 or some similar inaccuracy, as the Scheveningen isn't very popular these days. Of course that would only last for so long if the opening became popular again. 

Otherwise we need someone with new ideas on how to create practical winning chances for black, especially in the following position (or 6. ...e5 a completely different way of playing), to try and revive the opening to its former prestige. It hardly looks like a dead draw with best black play, there must be some way.
  
    

The Scheveningen Sicilian Revisited by Daniel Gormally, 2024:

https://forwardchess.com/product/the-scheveningen-sicilian-revisited?section=Pro...

The book is €38,95 for a mere 173 pages.

I do not think anyone would buy this book for that price.

I don't have the book. There is a book on another opening, which I will describe as "chess to enjoy." Does that apply here?

It's a collection of games. It contains a little history, some classic games, a  few games from the author, some insight on how to play the middle-game, and some opening ideas. As a repertoire book, it's probably a little spotty.

I don't play the Scheveningen but have considered it from time to time. Engines seem to like White's chances in the Keres variation. 

I've run across firm evaluations in other openings. Yet when I play on, the lines are drawn. How should an author treat this? I think some authors simply provide their opinion (as though they don't have an engine). End of story. I'd like it if the author acknowledges the computer evaluation and then disagrees.

Well I hope he will use 6…e5 when dealing with the Keres Attack as 7 Nf5 g6! or 7 Bb5 are not that dangerous. And the variation 6…h6 is good as well when black plays 7…e5 after 7 h4 7 Be3 or 7 Rg1