I recommend 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 and 6. Be3 e6 7. f3. There is much theory, but if you forget theory, the plan is very simple: to attack. Theory that requires memorisation in this line, unlike many lines of 6. Bg5, will make much sense so you if you forget the theory, you can try to postulate the remainder of the lines that you have forgotten during the game. I used to play 6. Be3 when I played 1. e4, and though I lost many games against the Sicilian, the theory is definitely less than 6. Bg5, and you simply attack the kingside.

I understand the OP - I have a similar problem due to the fact that our Open Sic repertoire is quite similar:

Velimirovic, Yugoslav Attack, some Maroczy Binds, ML Sveshnikov and what about the Najdorf?!? Playing an anti-line is one option (e.g. 5. Bd3 or Qxd4 lines), but let's first think of the issue within ML boundaries:

As a Najdorf player myself I am not convinced at all with tries like 6. h3, g3, a4, f4, Rg1 (the 'freak attack' mentioned already), Qf3 (a rather fresh try). Also the more established 6. Bd3, Be2, Bc4 don't pose me great problems. It's only 6. Be3 and especially 6. Bg5 that I consider critical.

On the other hand, consistency with the OP's chosen repertoire is very, very important here, e.g. 6. g3 Nc6 or 6. g3 g6 and you are out of your repertoire.

So I think the 2 most consistent choices available are:
a) 6. Bc4 e6 => I am not satisfied with it as White (esp. vs. 7. Bb3 Nbd7), nevertheless it is the most consistent and you only have to face 6. ... e6 setups. Play is very tactical which is a minus considering what the OP requested (but Velimirovic is very tactical also!?!?!).
b) 6. Be3 e6 or unfortunately 6. Be3 e5 => so you face 2 setups here (a minor concern is to learn sth vs. 6. ... Ng4 7. Bc1 Nf6 8. f3 Qb6). Though it is the ML, it is more about concepts in comparison to the 6. Bc4 lines (see also TN's comment above). It is also more consistent with the Velimirovic & Yugoslav due to the possibility to go O-O-O (which is difficult with 6. Bc4).

If you decide between one of the above, then you can also consider what to play vs. Schevy setups, e.g.:
a) 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 Be7?! 8. g4 is a nice option and is even more obvious if you also use the Keres Attack vs. the Scheveningen (btw if you do play the Keres, you should seriously consider 6. h3 vs. the Najdorf - only problem imo is the Dragon reply).
b) 6. Be3 can also be applied vs. the Scheveningen (if you don't plan to play the Keres) and is also good vs. the Taimanov.

my 2c 

So the bottom line is not: which 6th move is best after 5...a6, but which one allows you to outplay your opponent. As Kasparov has taught us all that 5...a6 eqaualizes I completely agree with you.

ErictheRed wrote on 04/24/12 at 14:46:44:


I am sure that no matter what variation you chose "playing a la Karpov in the 70s" would give you good results. I just have not figured out how to do the "playing a la Karpov".

The game that secured me 2nd spot in 2010 Danish Ch's on ICCF.
Compare with the Carlsen game in my previous post - lol

Dear WoofWoof,

Good to see some boldness! You are quite right about Black not having to weaken himself so early with ...b5.  But when I wrote those old notes, I was apparently under the impression that 6. ...e5 was inacurrate due to 7. Ktde2 Be6 ; 8. Bg5 Ktbd7 ; 9. Ktd5 (this suggestion you missed in my initial post).
But now that I look at it again, Black's position looks fine to me. Hard to say what I had in mind. 
Nevertheless, I still prefer the more subtle 6. ...Qc7 ; 7. 0-0 e5, ruling out any early attempts by White to gain control over -d5. 

                                                          Regards,
                                                                Hubert

I was answering a post which discussed the merits of 6. Bd3 against the Najdorf. 
I suppose I should have made that clearer and now that I look at my post, I can't say that it's very inviting, what with all the references to Nunn's book. But I just copied and pasted some notes I'd made long ago. If you have the patience to delve into it, I'm sure you will understand it all now.

                                                                 Regards,
                                                                        UD
 
P.S.The fact that I posted this right behind discussions of 5. Bd3 was pure coïncidence.