Sicilian question Classical and Najdorf

a6 is a common move in all Sicilian variations.

Of course move order matters, and sometimes it comes much later, and sometimes not at all, but it's a common move.

Well, I've never heard of mixing the Classical and the Najdorf.  There is no variation called the "Classidorf".  There is the Dragadorf, which is basically the dragon with ...a6 played, a move not normally played in the regular dragon.

Theory is skeptical on the Dragadorf.  Usually White gets a raging attack and the play is too slow for Black.  In essence, White gets the raging attack that he gets in the normal dragon WITH an extra move!

The Classical and the Najdorf don't mix mainly because of the Knight.  In the Classical, which Black plays 5...Nc6, the move ...a6 may get played at some point, but you are NOT in a Najdorf just because a6 has been played.  You are pretty much not in a Najdorf at all, which usually entails placing the Knight on d7 rather than c6.

Just because one line features a move that another line might feature at an earlier moment doesn't mean you are "mixing" lines.  If that were the case, one would argue that 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 is both the Sicilian and the French, and only someone with zero opening knowledge would be dumb enough to say that!  In no circumstances are you in French territory there!  You are in Sicilian territory!

Same thing here.  The Classical with 7...a6 or 8...a6 is NOT a Classical/Najdorf hybrid.  It's the Classical Sicilian.  Again, in the Najdorf, that Knight would be on d7, not c6.

If you want to play the Classical, 2...Nc6 is the most straightforward and immediate way to do it. Then there's no confusion.

The Najdorf generally involves an ...e5 push (which is what the ...a6 move helps prepare, guarding the b5 square so white's d4 knight can't jump into it). It's a very pawn-focused defense, with a lot of the struggle focusing on the d5 square and the ensuing pawn structure.

The Classical more of a piece-oriented defense, focusing more on development and piece play rather than pawn structure.

So a lot depends on what kind of game you want to play.

True, you can play it with ...e6 (indeed, it's the strongest response to both Bg5 and Bc4), though it's worth noting that, aside from those moves from white, the main purpose of the ...a6 move is to prepare ...e5.

And ...e5 is the strongest response to many of white's tries for move 6.

6. Be3 e5

6. f3 e5

6. f4 e5

6. Be2 e5

6. g3 e5

6. a4 e5

Though, yes, Bg5 and Bc4 are probably best met by ...e6:

6. Bg5 e6

6. Bc4 e6

6. Qf3 is a bit of an oddity. Theory seems to prefer 6... g6 but if one wants to keep their repertoire simple and streamlined, sticking to an e-pawn move there would work too, with ...e6.

So, yes, I agree that you can play it Scheveningen style. Though some players seem to adopt 6...e6 in order to avoid the imbalance of playing ...e5 (which simultaneously avoids the whole spirit of the Najdorf, IMO).

I can understand if one is purely a Scheveningen player who's simply adding 5... a6 to avoid the Keres. But if you're a Najdorf player, I believe you should feel comfortable going into either kind of structure, depending on white's sixth move.

So you are basically asking if you should still play a certain move, in this case ...a6 even if there is a superior move? If you could post some positions with the specifics move in question I could assign 2 Russian kids to analyze it and answer your questions by noon.

In b4 a bunch of 800 FIDE rated blind kids fill this post with non-sensical theory battles.

Thank you everyone for your responses. This was all very helpful.