Why is the Sicilian Defense be considered an aggressive play?

Again with these self-affirmations, you can compliment yourself all day, I'm sure your mother tells you you're a very smart boy - but the fact remains a6 is a necessary defensive waiting move.... necessary because it serves an important function, and only an illiterate dunce confuses "defensive waiting move" with "aggressive extremely developing move". There is not a piece being developed, or even being opened up with this move. These two concepts are not interchangeable, and if you're so illiterate you can't tell the difference then yes, there might be no point in arguing with you, because ultimately you can't convince people who have chicken noodle soup for brains, who refuse to recognize what basic words mean, of anything.... especially over the internet.

Is a6 theory?

Look - I've read and studied hundred of pages of opening theory carefully, as have others, and what you're saying is unrealistic and stupid. It's just stupid.

Chess is different to just speaking in every day conversation. Saying a6 is a "passive waiting move" is completely false. There are no pure waiting moves in any standard opening, it's already assumed that every move is critical at this point. An actual waiting move that makes sense would occur later in the game, with the purest example being if it put the opponent in zugzwang. When GMs say a6 is waiting they are saying that in relation to making a useful developing/aggressive move in that order rather than playing e6 first.

You already changed from saying it was passive to saying it's defensive, which is totally different. a6 could be described as partially defensive, but it is also aggressive. While the Najdorf isn't as aggressive compared to the Dragon or accelerated dragon, it's very much part of an aggressive opening, is about to unfurl havoc if there's going to be a queenside pawn storm that is not available for scheveningen options with no a6. a6 is also slightly weakening the pawn structure while using a tempo so can be considered aggressive in that sense, b6 can become weak for an opposing knight or bishop to get in, and it's just not a "passive waiting move" in any sense.

Those are stupid things to say. Just stop.

Well, apparently you do need me to write an entire essay to establish the most simple and obvious things. Of course you will never thank me for the amount of time I've taken to correct your grave misunderstanding, but you should. I do it anyway as a public service.

First off, you're confusing two notions of waiting moves. One notion of waiting move is a throwaway move which often occurs in the middlegame - a move that doesn't serve an important function, but doesn't do harm and allows the other player to move, allowing for a reactionary playstyle. 
The other type of "waiting move" is not a throwaway move, but a nom-committal move - and this type can be more theoretical, and can occur in a sharp opening. This works because every move creates a weakness... and once you move a piece, you can't move it back. This is what a6 in the Najdorf is - it is non-committal, i.e. waiting. Would you like proof? Let's retrace the basic logic again, and see it for ourselves once again:

- if black plays 5... Nc6 white can respond with 6. Bg5, black winds up in the classical richter-rauzer. This is a very difficult line which GMs usually avoid. Since black committed to 5... Nc6 he's unable to respond to 6. Bg5 with Nd7, which is the optimal setup.
However, if black plays 5... a6, and white plays 6. Bg5, black can play 6... Nd7 and achieve the optimal setup. Black has waited to commit, and benefited from it. Do you understand, dunce?

- if black plays 5... e6 white can respond 6. g4 and black finds himself in the keres attack, another very difficult line which most GMs avoid. The move 5... e6 blocked in blacks queenside bishop so that it no longer guards g4, allowing white to push g4 immediately. Black also wants to play e5 after the attack on the flank, responding with a thrust in the center and bumping the knight, but he can't do that efficiently as he's already committed to e6. Now... if black plays 5... a6 the move 6. g4 is not possible, since it'd just be met with Bxg4. 
So again, black has waited... and benefited. Black has waited for white to commit to a setup, and avoided the Keres.

- if black plays g6 he winds up in a yugoslav, another very difficult line which most GMs avoid. White plays Be3 > f3 > g4, castles queenside, and launches a very strong kingside attack with his pawns. Black has committed to the fiancetto and has little time, he has to castle kingside and hang on. 
Now... again, if black plays 5... a6 and white responds 6. Be3 black has better responses, black doesn't have to be slow and walk straight into the kingside pawn storm... black can play quicker moves like e5 / Be7, developing his counter attack more quickly while pressuring the center... it's a challenging line still but it fares far better than the Yugoslav. Again, made possible because black waited, and refrained from committing to g6.

Now, many players will play a "dragondorf", or even transpose into the Scheveningen after a6. Why? 
Well because, as we just learned, by playing a6 they can wait until white commits, and decide whether to enter a dragon avoiding the English attack, a Scheveningen avoiding the keres, etc..

Furthermore... if black plays the classical sicilian 5... Nc6, and white does not respond with the most lethal response 6. Bg5, but instead plays almost any other move such as 6. Be3, 6. Bc4, 6. f3, 6. Be2, and so on... black has alot more aggression in these lines and an easier time than hee has in the Najdorf. Because black has access to more early tactics. The lines are characterized by more early aggression from black. 
For example, if 6. Be3 Ng4 black has already equalized - the English attack does not work against the classical sicilian. And it's due to the additional tactics enabled by Nc6. Hence the fact black has played an early developing move, Nc6, enables early aggression. That's why we say the classical sicilian is aggressive, and it is. These additional early tactics are not available after more passive moves such as a6, or g6.

Likewise, while a6 isn't objectively bad against anything, black also doesn't have any early tactics or straightforward refutations on whites next moves... white has about 5 different strong responses and another 5 significant ones. So the Najdorf is a very large opening with tons of theory, and that's due to the move a6 being passive.

Now, you could argue that there are different senses in which the Najdorf is aggressive - it leads to dynamic middlegames with counterplay (like all sicilians), it isn't drawish and black can play for a win - in this conversation we are talking about the move a6 itself, whether that move is passive or developing or aggressive or waiting - while contrasting the Najdorf with other sicilians.

This does not imply a6 is not useful - again, the fact a move serves a function does not make it aggressive, this is just a matter of definition. Passive moves, defensive moves - they serve functions too.

____________________________________

Okay, I also want to address this nonsense claim that your attitude is backed up by theory. Firstly, it's hilarious that you feel the need to defer to academic authority to figure out whether a6 is a passive, defensive waiting move or an aggressive extremely developing move. (and yes, it's possible to be both passive and defensive at the same time, I know this is difficult).

In actual fact descriptions of the Najdorf's a6 as a "waiting move" are all over the place. Which isn't surprising, because it obviously is passive - it isn't developing a piece, it's not occupying the center or even contesting it.

- Sam Shankland goes on for 10 minutes in his sicilian chessable course specifically on how a6 in the Najdorf is a waiting move, and compares it with the classical which he calls more aggressive.

- Kramnik in his e4 chessable course calls a6 in the Najdorf a waiting move

- the IM who wrote this article also calls it a waiting move in the opening section of the article: 
https://thechessworld.com/articles/general-information/why-you-should-play-the-najdorf-sicilian/

- This article here completely agrees with the analysis I've provided and calls it a waiting move as well - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory/1._e4/1...c5/2._Nf3/2...d6/3._d4/3...cxd4/4._Nxd4/4...Nf6/5._Nc3/5...a6

Now... we don't really need academic authorities to tell us that a6 is a waiting move since this is self-evident, but for those sheeple who are afraid to think for themselves at all... the academic authorities are calling it a waiting move.

____________________________________

Lastly, the move a6 is both passive and defensive. Now, passivity and defensiveness are not identical, but they are closely related. For proof - just look at the move a6, which is both defensive and passive. It's defending from the knight jumping into b5... and it's passive, because it's not attacking anything, or immediately pressuring anything, or even developing a major/minor piece, or even contesting the center; and infact, it is a waiting move as I have established.

So no, you are wrong, you really do fail entirely... if you want to talk intelligence - you critical thinking is like that of a dung beetle rolling dung up a hill only for it to roll back down again, then you have to go down the hill and roll it up again, from now until the day you die you will be rolling that dung up a hill and down again.

And for one final challenge - of the 13-15 sicilians people play regularly can you name any single sicilian that isn't aggressive by your definition of the word? Because remember, I'm originally describing a6 / g6 as leading to more passive sicilians, in contrast with other sicilians like the Four Knights or Classical. Furthermore, can you name any opening that isn't aggressive, and explain why? I await your response. Or alternatively just compliment yourself some more and act as if you've substantiated your claim while saying pretty much nothing, which is what you've been doing.

Carry onward!

You’ll have to define what “aggressive play” is?

For me, maintaining or grasping the initiative or having active or counter play is suffice.

A one mover that’s cohesive with a strategy or middle game plan or line that appears passive isn’t always the case for a Sicilian player; you can say the same with Grunfeld players. They’re behind the evaluation bar thru out the opening but come the middle game; black gets active counter play.

It’s similar when people say 1. d4 is not aggressive.

Well, apparently you do need me to write an entire essay to establish the most simple and obvious things. Of course you will never thank me for the amount of time I've taken to correct your grave misunderstanding, but you should. I do it anyway as a public service.

A public service? lol. Look it's admirable if you really think you're providing a "public service" with these online posts but sometimes the best public service you can do is remain silent, not come up with your own descriptions of chess moves that are contrary to common knowledge among people who know more about the subject, and not be argumentative with people who try to explain it to you. For this particular post at least there seems to be something of some substance.

First off, you're confusing two different notions of waiting moves. One type of waiting move is a throwaway move which often occurs in the middlegame - a move that doesn't serve an important function, but doesn't do harm and allows the other player to move, allowing for a reactionary playstyle. The other type of "waiting move" is not a throwaway move, but a nom-committal move - and this type can be more theoretical, and can occur in a sharp opening. This works because every move creates a weakness... and once you move a piece, you can't move it back. This is what a6 in the Najdorf is - it is non-committal, i.e. waiting.

Isn't this just the exact same point I literally just explained to you? You were calling the move a6 a "passive waiting move" and I clarified to you about why it's sometimes called a waiting move and how it is also a developing move.

Would you like proof? Let's retrace the basic logic again, and see it for ourselves once again:

- if black plays 5... Nc6 white can respond with 6. Bg5, black winds up in the classical richter-rauzer. This is a very difficult line which GMs usually avoid. Since black committed to 5... Nc6 he's unable to respond to 6. Bg5 with Nd7, which is the optimal setup.However, if black plays 5... a6, and white plays 6. Bg5, black can play 6... Nd7 and achieve the optimal setup. Black has waited to commit, and benefited from it. Do you understand, dunce?

If you call me a dunce or something like that again you lose all credibility in my eyes and I will never entertain anything you say again.

Sure, the Nc6 line is more aggressive than the Najdorf but it is also considered much more shaky as you yourself state. We can come up with more aggressive lines all day and night, but if they're scarcely playable at the elite level then why mention it.

What you're saying is like saying the move O-O-O in the mainline Yugoslav Attack is a "passive waiting non-developing move" because it's not as aggressive as an immediate h4 or whatever. And saying a bunch of other more aggressive moves that are generally avoided. Does that sound right to you? If you would like to argue castling is developing because it develops the rook - well a6 is necessary to develop the bishop to its most attacking square of b7, so yes it is extremely developing. You could also make a similar argument about 7. f3 in the yugoslav attack, it's just trying to avoid Ng4 but it's not "developing" would you call that "a passive waiting move", would you?

Nothing about development in the Yugoslav attack can be described as a "passive waiting move". You're not right in what you're saying, just relent and accept.

I can not understand people like you in any way who don't simply concede when they're wrong. Noone is trying to "trick" you here. There's no shame in getting something wrong, there is if you keep at it like this.

- if black plays 5... e6 white can respond 6. g4 and black finds himself in the keres attack, another very difficult line which most GMs avoid. The move 5... e6 blocked in blacks queenside bishop so that it no longer guards g4, allowing white to push g4 immediately. Black also wants to play e5 after the attack on the flank, responding with a thrust in the center and bumping the knight, but he can't do that efficiently as he's already committed to e6. Now... if black plays 5... a6 the move 6. g4 is not possible, since it'd just be met with Bxg4. 

That is all pointless to me because I am already very familiar with why black plays a6 instead of e6, I've played thousands of games using the scheveningen.

So again, black has waited... and benefited. Black has waited for white to commit to a setup, and avoided the Keres.

Right, and this has been explained to you, that is why it's called a waiting move. Why are you trying to explain it to me when you're the one who obviously needed it? I mean even if I was unfamiliar with what was being said, why the **** would I trust you with it after expressing how unreliable I find what you say it? Why would I trust you with explaining an opening to me, does that make sense?

They say the best way to learn is to teach, is what you're attempting to do? You're not teaching anyone. There's another individual that used to do this, like they were reciting what they learned themselves recently to solidify in their own mind and I'm pretty sure nobody else learned anything from them.

- if black plays g6 he winds up in a yugoslav, another very difficult line which most GMs avoid. White plays Be3 > f3 > g4, castles queenside, and launches a very strong kingside attack with his pawns. Black has committed to the fiancetto and has little time, he has to castle kingside and hang on. 

White doesn't "wind up" in anything unless he plays that way. There are several attractive options for white against 5. ...g6 including the Levenfish for example, which has plenty of theory and is a valid and popular option. You just assume that one side always plays the absolute mainline when you feel like it same as you did assuming white plays the richter-rauzer, and then other times when you feel like it you talk about all the other options he has such as instead of playing the Najdorf.

Now... again, if black plays 5... a6 and white responds 6. Be3 black has better responses, black doesn't have to be slow and walk straight into the kingside pawn storm... black can play quicker moves like e5 / Be7, developing his counter attack more quickly while pressuring the center... it's a challenging line still but it fares far better than the Yugoslav. Again, made possible because black waited, and refrained from committing to g6. 

The dragon is slow now - what?! What nonsense - the other sicilians are faster than the Najdorf, that's why it's partly a waiting move. At least you were basically getting it right up to now but your bluff finally gets exposed here. I will give it a low pass. By the way the dragon remains a powerful weapon for non-elites.

Now, many players will play a "dragondorf", or even transpose into the Scheveningen after a6. Why? Well because, as we just learned, by playing a6 they can wait until white commits, and decide whether to enter a dragon avoiding the English attack, a Scheveningen avoiding the keres, etc..

Furthermore... if black plays the classical sicilian 5... Nc6, and white does not respond with the most lethal response 6. Bg5, but instead plays almost any other move such as 6. Be3, 6. Bc4, 6. f3, 6. Be2, and so on... black has alot more aggression in these lines and an easier time than hee has in the Najdorf. Because black has access to more early tactics. The lines are characterized by more early aggression from black. For example, if 6. Be3 Ng4 black has already equalized - the English attack does not work against the classical sicilian. And it's due to the additional tactics enabled by Nc6. Hence the fact black has played an early developing move, Nc6, enables early aggression. That's why we say the classical sicilian is aggressive, and it is. These additional early tactics are not available after more passive moves such as a6, or g6.

Once again keep me out of your larp that you are teaching or informing anyone. I won't comment on the accuracy or not of all your statements as it would take a while, but sure you are right about some of these things and have a basic grasp of the ideas. You still have this problem of thinking in black and white, when you get a more advanced understanding you'll come to realize that it's not always as simple as those one-line arguments for or against a move.

Likewise, while a6 isn't objectively bad against anything, black also doesn't have any early tactics or straightforward refutations on whites next moves... white has about 5 different strong responses and another 5 significant ones. So the Najdorf is a very large opening with tons of theory, and that's due to the move a6 being passive.

Haaaaaaahahahaha. No, you do not get to sneak your word "passive" in there that noone else has ever used in the history of speaking about the Najdorf. You're a funny guy.

Now, you could argue that there are different senses in which the Najdorf is aggressive - it leads to dynamic middlegames with counterplay (like all sicilians), it isn't drawish and black can play for a win - in this conversation we are talking about the move a6 itself, whether that move is passive or developing or aggressive or waiting - while contrasting the Najdorf with other sicilians.

This does not imply a6 is not useful - again, the fact a move serves a function does not make it aggressive, this is just a matter of definition. Passive moves, defensive moves - they serve functions too.

First of all, there are other sicilians that don't start on move 5. Again, the Najdorf is the mainline and yes it's one of the most solid ways to play the Sicilian. Again, it's just a ridiculous and rubbishy description to say a6 is "passive", it's a stupid word. Nobody would ever use that who had a good grasp of opening theory. You would even have a far better argument of calling 9. h3 in the mainline Ruy Lopez a "passive" move, since white usually doesn't use it to go on a kingside storm or to fianchetto the bishop making it a lot more dangerous. You just don't go around labelling moves like that.

Okay, I also want to address this nonsense claim that your attitude is backed up by theory. Firstly, it's hilarious that you feel the need to defer to academic authority to figure out whether a6 is a passive, defensive waiting move or an aggressive extremely developing move. (and yes, it's possible to be both passive and defensive at the same time, I know this is difficult).

In actual fact descriptions of the Najdorf's a6 as a "waiting move" are all over the place. Which isn't surprising, because it obviously is passive - it isn't developing a piece, it's not occupying the center or even contesting it.

How dumb are you?! I have repeatedly stated before this post that a6 is considered a waiting move, haven't I?

Haven't I?

And I have even explained why you mistakenly thought it was a passive move.

I explained your own thinking and mistake for you. I can't do any more than that.

I said you tried to sneak the word "passive" in before in this post and you just did it again, this time in a far more farcical manner.

- Sam Shankland goes on for 10 minutes in his sicilian chessable course specifically on how a6 in the Najdorf is a waiting move, and compares it with the classical which he calls more aggressive.

- Kramnik in his e4 chessable course calls a6 in the Najdorf a waiting move

- the IM who wrote this article also calls it a waiting move in the opening section of the article: https://thechessworld.com/articles/general-information/why-you-should-play-the-najdorf-sicilian/

- This article here completely agrees with the analysis I've provided and calls it a waiting move as well - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory/1._e4/1...c5/2._Nf3/2...d6/3._d4/3...cxd4/4._Nxd4/4...Nf6/5._Nc3/5...a6

Now... we don't really need academic authorities to tell us that a6 is a waiting move since this is self-evident, but for those sheeple who are afraid to think for themselves at all... the academic authorities are calling it a waiting move.

You're actually crazy.

Lastly, the move a6 is both passive and defensive. Now, passivity and defensiveness are not identical, but they are closely related. For proof - just look at the move a6, which is both defensive and passive. It's defending from the knight jumping into b5... and it's passive, because it's not attacking anything, or immediately pressuring anything, or even developing a major/minor piece, or even contesting the center; and infact, it is a waiting move as I have established.

It has already been explained to you multiple times that a6 is necessary for preparing b5 which surely you can understand is a developing move for the Bishop. If 1. e4 is a developing move then b5 is, right? b5 isn't immediately playable, you have to play a6 for it. And even moreso the queenside pawn attack it prepares.

And for one final challenge - of the 13-15 sicilians people play regularly can you name any single sicilian that isn't aggressive by your definition of the word? Because remember, I'm originally describing a6 / g6 as leading to more passive sicilians, in contrast with other sicilians like the Four Knights or Classical. Furthermore, can you name any opening that isn't aggressive, and explain why? I await your response. Or alternatively just compliment yourself some more and act as if you've substantiated your claim while saying pretty much nothing, which is what you've been doing.

No, I can not name a single sicilian that isn't aggressive by my definition of the word because the sicilian is aggressive by nature. If you stated that the Najdorf is LESS aggressive than the classical Nc6 or than the dragon, then you would be correct. But first of all there are problems with those hyperaggressive moves you have noted yourself, and secondly you could have a situation where all respectable moves are aggressive and developing. There are these weird glitches/fallacies in your thinking process of what you assume and disregard. There are lots of situations where every respected move is a further aggressive one that can not be described as passive.

For example if you have committed to a pawn storm attack, in many situations it's a race to mate and stopping to play a defensive move or especially "passive" one would just set you back a turn and would just be an unplayable move. Why do you assume that for every situation there must be a passive move and that we're comparing all moves relative to other reasonable options? As the sicilian is fundamentally aggressive, normally the moves in it are also aggressive.

As it happens playing e6 immediately and foregoing a6 at least for a while, as in what's been called the Modern Scheveningen might be termed less aggressive and more passive than the Najdorf. Even a move like a6 is committal in some way, and can lead to a a serious weakness on b6, as stated. Also with the Najdorf you can move e6 or e5, playing e6 with a small centre is less commital and more modest than the Najdorf's e5 which leaves a d5 hole, at least in theory. Many passive defences run the risk of being just overrun by a quick pawn storm having made no counterplay possibilities - and this is what happens in the Keres' attack.

Obviously the Modern Scheveningen is fully correct and playable despite of how the Keres' attack poses a few too many headaches and without enough counterplay to be played frequently by the elites. If they were just happy with a draw there are better defences than the Sicilian, so this danger of losing along with the nerfed chances of winning due to slower counterplay than the Najdorf has is why the Modern Scheveningen isn't so popular anymore, it's a bit too passive. The Perenyi attack 6. Be3 e6 7. g4 and the crude attack 6. Rg2 ((anything)) 7. g4 are ways of trying to force such an attack against the Najdorf.

It's the silician no need to get personal here.

You see this is why I play simple openings like the Budapest so I don't argue with people over 100 variations of the opening and which one is best.

its not really aggressive, just a long-term aggressive opening where many variations have many different aggressive ideas

Exactly it's not that deep

The Sicilian isn’t long term aggressive.

The Sicilian is long term positional.

The Sicilian is aggressive because White willingly creates an imbalance which forces Black to play aggressive.

White’s aggression forces Black hand to play aggressive as a form of defensive counter measures.

If white plays the most popular (and often best according to the results and the computer) moves. the sicilian is an aggressive opening.

If white doesn't allow black to open the c-file, and tries to swap off pieces like in the Canal variation, and doesn't go for a grand prix or fianchetto his kingside, then the aggression gets subdued at the expense of white having any good attack either. So yeah it all becomes more technical and positional, but black still has great chances to win, and is in theory better overall than if he had played e5 and white was also trying to draw that.