Studying the Najdorf

Anyone have any advice on playing the Poisoned Pawn, good, bad?

Maybe if you like doing exams. 

I always preferred the 7. … Be7 line (and often continuing into the Gotenburg Deferred) instead of the Poisoned Pawn.

It is theorically speaking a good (great?) weapon.

But at your level, playing sicilian is a bad choice, and playing this kind of variation is just suicide.

Moreover, almost nobody will play Bg5 so spending so many time for nothing...

Try to play simpler openings.

"Generally speaking, 'Starting Out' and 'Sicilian Najdorf' are not exactly words that one envisions in the same title, because anyone who is just starting out should not dive into the vast ocean of theory that is the Najdorf. For beginners, the time invested in studying even minor lines can be more productively used solving tactical puzzles and basic endgame technique.
...
... In some lines, a good understanding of basic principles will take you far, while in others, such as the Poisoned Pawn (6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6!?), memorization is a must, as one wrong move can cost you the game in the blink of an eye. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006), reviewing Starting Out: Sicilian Najdorf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626175558/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen87.pdf

Around 2010, IM John Watson wrote, "... For players with very limited experience, ... the Sicilian Defence ... normally leaves you with little room to manoeuvre and is best left until your positional skills develop. ... I'm still not excited about my students playing the Sicilian Defence at [the stage where they have a moderate level of experience and some opening competence], because it almost always means playing with less space and development, and in some cases with exotic and not particularly instructive pawn-structures. ... if you're taking the Sicilian up at [say, 1700 Elo and above], you should put in a lot of serious study time, as well as commit to playing it for a few years. ..."

"... As Black, I think that [players with very limited experience] would do well … playing 1...e5 versus 1 e4 …" - IM John Watson (2010)

Depends on his goals.

If he wants to learn about tactics and the importance of the initiative, then the Sicilian Najdorf might be a decent choice. There is a cost, of course: he'll lose a lot of games and rating points... in the short term. Might learn a few things, though.

I've been playing the Najdorf since I was a 1300 player. And I lost a lot of games. But it doesn't seem to have hurt me much.

I agree with blueemu. It makes no sense to me that the sicilian can't be played by low rated players. Watson was talking about absolute beginners. 

While all open sicilians are sharp there's a huge difference between the gilded edge Bg5 Najdorf poisoned pawn variation (which of course is chosen by black) and any sicilian in general. Subtle mistakes like mixing up move order in the sicilian might be very harshly punished by a good player but probably won't even be noticed by a player of similar strength who is busy trying to roll out his own attack. The Najdorf structure is pretty solid and flexible. Yes there are tactics, but do you really think lower rated players are better off spending a long time considering the best philosophical squares for their pieces? 

Agreed, but it's not quite that simple.

Isaac Newton revolutionized our understanding of physics, in part because he was a devoted student of Copernican physics and Kepler's work. His most famous quote was in reply to the question of how he could see these new ideas so easily: "I stand on the shoulders of giants". Vesalius is considered to be the founder of the modern science of anatomy, and he developed his understanding of the subject by making a thorough study of Galen's work, centuries earlier. 

I agree that in chess practical play is more important than academic study, but both have a role to play. One of my own best games was based on an improvement (or novelty) that I had found on the 28th move of an old master game, played nearly 45 years ago.

A combination of study (the old master game), introspection (my new improvement on move 28) and practical play (from the 28th move onward) gave me a win that I'm still fond of showing to people.

I assume you are young. Study and play the Najdorf now... Don't wait till your ratings rise above 1500. Time is on your side.

That is not what he wrote. As my quote indicated, his comment for "players with very limited experience" was that "... the Sicilian Defence … is best left until your positional skills develop." Thinking of those who "have a moderate level of experience and some opening competence", he referred to himself as "still not excited about" his "students playing the Sicilian Defence". Even for players "say, 1700 Elo and above", he seemed to think the Sicilian was not something to be undertaken lightly ("you should put in a lot of serious study time, as well as commit to playing it for a few years"). Still, for all that, I did not get an impression of inflexible opposition. His word choice gives me the impression that he felt that some of his students had chosen to go for the Sicilian prematurely. Nevertheless, I don't see him affirming that such a choice has to end in disaster. Perhaps his belief was just that early Sicilian use would slow progress, but not necessarily prevent it. Perhaps his advice was intended as general and not necessarily appropriate for every single individual. But, to return to the first hand, it might not be a good idea to casually ignore the advice of someone who seems to have had a fair amount of experience with "students".

"To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! ... you need to ... solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. …" - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf

You didn't beat anyone. You are a delusional fool who makes accounts on a chess website to troll people. 

Do we have a source other than 1And7Then8 for these reported statements about 1And7Then8?

Does that establish the extent to which you are "self taught"? Does that establish anything about games against "Lenderman, Shankland and Dreev"?

How will your rating establish that you are "totally self taught"? Do you have an estimate of the amount of time that will go by without you being demonstrated to be of GM strength?

Playing one of the most theory intensive openings at your level us not a good idea, especially when youre not even following the basics of the game.

For the future, perhaps we can agree that opening choice can matter for someone like DJJuriaial?

Do we have anyone other than 1And7Then8 affirming that "the quality of" your "play and decision making in critical positions" demonstrates GM strength? In any event, do you think GM Yusupov was attempting to discuss you or attempting to discuss what is usually involved in becoming a GM?

"To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! ... you need to ... solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. …" - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf

Do you have an estimate of the amount of time that will go by without a known titled player affirming that "the quality of" your "play and decision making in critical positions" demonstrates GM strength?

Do we have a source other than 1And7Then8 for these reported statements about 1And7Then8?