Just FYI, this is not the "typical" Najdorf opening -- typically the najdorf has 2... d6 as the second move for black, as only one knight is usually developed at this point.

ethansiegel is right: this would have been a Najdorf had Black played 2...d6 instead of the Knight move. The reason for it is to allow Black to play 6...e5 without having to worry about the B check on b5. Given the game situation, 5...a6 is unnecessary. Instead, Black plays 5...d6 to prepare his central counterattack (the Boleslavski), or even at once 5...e5 (the Pelikan). Having said all that, it will be interesting to see whether the game develops along normal Najdorf lines, or White diverges...

This is a commitment by black to challenge white in the center. e5 is a better move now for black than it would have been before a6, as now the annoying Nb5 is not an option, as in the sveshnikov or lowenthal variations.

NxN gives black a better hold on the center than the text, although I would have preferred Nb3 as a better square to retreat to.

Broadly speaking, I go along with ethansiegel here, but that is not to criticise White's last: very frequently played in analogous positions. The exchange on c6 is something to consider, but Black's d-pawn won't remain backward for long, leaving him with a central preponderance.

I kinda like 8.Bg5 here. I'm not sure that the doubled isolated pawns a much to be apprehended if they give White an active game. After 8...Bxc3ch 9.bxc3 d6 10.Bc4 (say) White ought to be able to bring quite a lot of pressure down the d-file.

I agree with black that although his d-pawn is weak, he decided to take on this burden back when he played e5. It's more important to get the light-squared bishop developed and active, and this is one of two ways to do it; the other would have been by fianchetto, and I agree with tag's decision here.

Frees up the c-Bishop, but also threatens White's e-pawn...

I really really like d5 here. It is not often in this variation that black gets to play d5 due to whites pressure but here is an exception. Black should at least be equal.

There's not much wrong with 9...Be6, with a view to the pawn break at d5. This would be my preference, though there doesn't seem to be a lot in it. After all, 9...Be6 10.Ng5 0-0 11.Nxe6 is possible, not that it ought to frighten Black very much.

IMO, black should've thought about this when he played the aggressive Bg4. It has now taken him three moves to put pressure on the e4 pawn, while his bishop can be exchanged at white's disposal by simply Nh4. If the plan was to go after the e4 pawn, playing b5 followed by Bb7 would have been better.

ethansiegel's comments are fair enough, but Black has shown flexibility of mind here: no bad thing when a new idea turns up. Ethansiegel's plan of ...b4 and ...Bb7 is also thematic, as the bishop would also support a pawn break by ...d5. On the other hand, Black might have to consider the consequences of White's a2-a3, putting the question on the b4-bishop, and possibly developing some pressure on Black's Q-wing. Sacrifices on b5 might even become possible... Indeed, hereabouts White ought to have been considering a2-a3 (though it doesn't seem playable at this very moment!)...

Nh4 was better here -- removing black's "good" bishop for white's knight on the weaker side of the board and securing the bishop pair before commencing this is to be preferred.

(?!) Looks wrong to me, as the game continuation seems to indicate. Even so, I would be very reluctant as White in this sort of position to invite exchanges on d5, as the recapture exd5 masks the backward pawn on d6, but also blocks up Black's weak point at d5. Further, it leaves open the possibility of Black developing a pawn roller by ...f7-f5 at some point later on. Tactical considerations might override these positional ones, but here the tactics seem to favour Black. Has White spotted something?

Like I said, Nh4 removing this pesky black bishop would have been far better for white earlier. Now black emerges with the bishop pair.