Yes you are right! Of course I meant (under iii.) 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bf1 Nf6 8. f3 e5 9. Nb3 Be6..

Your suggestion made me think a lot. The lines you give seem perfectly playable, but I was still reluctant to believe that playing Be7 first could be a bad idea. Though 8. Bc4 & 9. Bd5 seems like a logical continuation, I cannot see why Black is inferior, as a normal Najdorf position arises.

In my eyes as Black you have to stop / or make unattractive the combination of Bc4+Bg5. If White needs to play Be2-c4 or Be3-g5 and waste one tempo moving again 1 of his 2 Bishops, then you are usually OK. But it is impossible to have time to stop one of the two (Bc4 or Bg5). I have done a search using NiC on-line database for games in the line you give and the only example I could find was Oliver Mussgnug (2055)-Jochen Cremer (2180), Werther 1999, 0-1 (convincing play by Black, though the players' strength differs a lot and also one game is not enough for really useful statistics).

But again, the lines you give with 7. Nb3 Be6 look fine.

cheers, chk

(edit): P.S.: It is a matter of taste too, as I usually don't employ an early d5-break (that holds both for the way I play the Anti-Sicilians and the Najdorf); so this line that you give with an early ..d5 after White's f4 is not something I usually do, - on the other hand many times I like to play around the hole on d5 and down the c-file, i.e. I tend to play better when the position remains semi-closed and keep the d5-break only if the conditions look favourable in a crystal-clear way.

My opinion is that 6. f3 is not merely a move-order trick. I play the Black side of the Najdorf and employ the e5-systems. So when I see 6. f3 I know for sure that I am not going to face an f4 by White.

The main worry for me is the dangerous Dolmatov system where White goes for f4 / Qd2 / O-O-O (or O-O depending where and if Black castles). This system is a variation to be found in the 6. Be2 line. However, in our example White has the option to omit Be2 and play the whole system a tempo up.

So with this background:
i.  6. f3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6!? is interesting, 8. Be3 Nbd7 9. Qd2 Qc7 and Black postpones Be7 and O-O to gain tempi for the counter-attack.
ii.  6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6?! 7. f4!? with a Dolmatov-system without a Be2 (i.e. a tempo up). More safe here is the normal main line with 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be7
iii. So following the above as White I would have had 2 options:
- 6. Be3 (to see if Black goes for e6, immediate e5, or Ng4) Ng4 7. Bf1 Nf6 (this sequence of moves may be repeated; both players test each other for the possibility of a draw) 8. f3 Be6!? with an inferior version of an English attack (in my eyes),
- 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bg5 h6 etc. and play the independent Ng4 lines, which (again in my eyes) is by no means bad for Black and you will need to know a bit of theory.

This is all based on my own observations and analysis (and taste!) so I may be somewhere wrong.  However, I have lately seen a couple of Top GM games with this line (6. f3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6!?).

What do you guys think about the anti-english attack move order:

1. e4 c5 
2. Nf3 d6 
3. d4 cxd
4. Nxd Nf6
5. Nc3 a6
6. Be3 Ng4

Also, if white really wants to play the english attack and plays 6. f3 7. Be3, is there any way for black to take advantage of this?