Beginner question about the Najdorf

Hey guys. I have a (probably silly) question about a position that occurs in the Najdorf. The position occurs after 5...a6 6.Bg5, as below - black to move.

Now in this position, my instinct was to play 6...e5. This seems reasonable to me - I open up the queen's defense of my f6 knight, meaning that I can trade on f6 without messing up my kingside pawns. and I simultaneously threaten white's nice central knight on d4.

After playing the move, I checked the position out in Game Explorer. Imagine my surprise: 6...e5 is hardly ever played by masters. So it must not be a very good move. 6...e6 is much more common. At first glance, it looks weaker to my eyes. It gets in the way of my light-squared bishop, and it is less threatening. 

Ok, so why is 6...e5 so bad? Interestingly, the most common response (though there are so few games that the percentages are not that meaningful) is the knight retreat, 7.Nb3,which yields a good win rate for black. That doesn't look like a scary line for black.

So again, why is 6...e5 bad for black? After staring at the board for a long time, the best thing I can come up with is that advancing black's e-pawn to e5 leaves a 'hole' on d5 (no black pawn can guard that square). And white can take advantage of this right away (7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Nd5, with tempo against the queen. Or if 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.Nd5, the white knight still claims the outpost, and black cannot castle safetly.)

Is that the answer?

The other reason why you see ...e5 against lines like 6.Be2, or 6.Be3, or 6.f4 is that White isn't putting immediate pressure on d5 in those lines.  6.Bg5 puts immediate pressue on d5 due to the attacking of the defender.  d5 is Black's most sensative square in most lines of the Sicilian.  6...e6 covers d5, something ...e5 fails miserably to do.

If White doesn't put immediate pressure on the Knight, then the d5-weakness is less of an issue.  Here, you put your own knight in a pin, inviting Nd5 by White without the ability to do what Black often does, and that's trade on d5, especially if White is forced to take with a pawn.  It does multiple things:

A) It shields your weakness on d6.  d6 is now harder to attack.

B) It moves Black's weak square from d5 to c6, a square that is harder for White to grasp on to and dominate.

Read the original post moron!  I was answering a question as to why ...e5 is seen in other lines of the Najdorf, but viewed as bad in the 6.Bg5 line.

It's to explain to the writer of the original post the reasoning behind when ...e5 is bad and when it's not!

Why on earth would you think I'm telling beginners to study Najdorf theory?  Even I can't make two cents out of the Najdorf, and I'm just under 2100.  I at least understand when to play e5 and when not to, but at my level, that's not sufficient to play the opening correctly, and so to answer your dumb question, NO, I would NOT recommend the Najdorf to a beginner, but I'm still going to answer questions that I'm able to answer on the forum here.

What other moron remarks you got to say there, DoNotThreadOnMe?

Fiveofswords, ThrillerFan, SR123 - thanks very much for your lucid explanations! 

Let me ask you a question.  Are you playing the Sicilian because it suits your playing style, or because its "tactical"?

To answer your question about 6...e5

1. Creates a hole on d5

2. Creates a weak backward pawn on d6

The Najdorf is perfectly playable, and was a staple of Fisher, and Kasparov, though Kasparov would transpose into a Schevenigan.

Yes, with the 6..e6 you can transpose into the Scheveningen with the flexible pawn center, watch over d5 and prepare Be7. I find white's 7. Nf5 annoying as well from the black side and am more comfortable with the position after e6 with the goal to get d5 in at some point.

So I would say e6 is less committal and more flexible.

Neither of those. In my games, I play a few different responses to 1.e4 (nearly at random, to be honest...) including ...e5, ...e6, and ...c5. The reason I play c5 at all is not because it particularly suits my style (I'm not experienced enough to really have a 'style', I think) or because it's tactical, but because it's popular. To me that makes it worth getting a feel for the opening, if for no other reason than I may face the positions myself with the white pieces. I definitely feel I'm learning something from this thread, for instance. 

Thanks for the insight.

Ok, thanks, I was curious.  Good Luck!

His post was correct and there's nothing in the recommending the opening to anyone. The name-calling was a bit extreme though.

And it happens again...

panaoyotisfrendasfan is the first troll to infect this post.  More to come...

Well, when he accuses people of losing credibility because he's too stupid to make sense out of anything and reads like a robot, there is nothing to do but refer to him as a moron.

Case in point, he's telling me that I have no credibility in my answer to his 6...e5 question because I say I can't make two cents out of the Najdorf as a whole.  That is moronic of him.

I very well understand why certain lines you have the option to play ...e5 or ...e6, and other lines ...e5 is just bad.  However, whether ...e5 is playable or not does not constitute complete knowledge of the Najdorf.

Move 6 in any line of the Najdorf makes perfect sense to me.  Najdorf theory goes into the 20s and 30s.  Understanding when and why Nd5 is good on one move for White and bad at another time for White, and knowing when that will be an actual problem for Black and when it won't, that's what baffles me and why I don't play the Najdorf, amongst other aspects of the Najdorf, like when can White leave the Bishop on g5 hanging and play h4 instead of moving the Bishop after Black plays ...h6, etc.

So after having to explain myself to an utter moron named DoNotThreadOnMe, who clearly lacks common sense, I can safely say that if you have questions about move 6 of the Najdorf, I can tell you the right answer and why it's right.  However, if they start asking about Knight sacrifices on d5 at moves 13 thru 16, I would defer to someone else.