Hate playing against the najdorf or modern dragon?

 Like I said wouldn't bother experienced players(or more specifically ones that play the chelyabinsk).  But, if you know you are playing a young booked up najdorf or dragon player it is great

It obviusly isn't a refutation to the najdorf or dragon. I was just saying if you don't want to play the sharp lines of the najdorf or dragon and play 1.e4 then this is pretty forcing option(and YOU will know where the game is going where your opponent is less prepared.  All you have to prepare for is the chelyabinsk and 5. e5). 

The reason I emphasized the young/inexperienced- was not because of lack of knowledge but because of stylistic reasons(Most of the young love wild open games even if it isn't justified.).  And I thought that was the reason for 4.n-f6(to avoid the maroczy)

I gained the impression that 5...Nc6 is the move to play here. Kinda forces White's hand a bit.

Nc6 will put a big hole in your Marcozy plan.  Obviously you are out of ML Dragon/Najdorf territory but is it where you want to go with a dark square weakness and a bishop buried by its own pawns?  If you want to avoid them a better line might be:  4. Qxd4 ....

The chelyabinsk has that bishop on that exact square with the exact same pawn structure....

Soltis recommends 6.nxc6, bxc6 and 7.c4,g6 8.b3 and gives the example 8...b-g7 9b-b2 0-0 10 0-0 q-c7 11n-c3 and states there hasn't been a simple antidote so far

This isn't in a repertoire book(transpo tricks in chess).   So I would wonder what you know that andy doesn't?

 If that last part sounded condescending- I would really like to know if you do see something possibly better for black.  I am always happy to learn something new. 

Who hates playing against the najdorf or dragon?  I know it's a matter of style, but I just don't understand.  If I couldn't play sharp lines, I wouldn't play at all.  It would be interesting to hear what someone who prefers slow positional chess has to say.

It isn't necessarily hating playing against it.  Just that there is so much theory in the najdorf and dragon.  Some players that are not nearly as good as me maybe know more theory on the najdorf than I do (I am working on it.  But, it is slow going)and can possibly get an advantage out of the opening because of it. 

Against this type of player I(or you) should be taking them into my (your) familiar zone and out of their familiarity.  It is a psychological weapon.  So black wants to play this way (sharp/tactical) and (in a lot of cases expects he is forcing play into a certain field)you take him into something which he is possibly unfamiliar with or probably trying to avoid.  If you can fight the battle you want to fight (especially against a weaker player) then half the battle is over.   

I must add that it doesn't necessarily have to turn into a positional (dull if that is your view) game-black can try some sharp responses-but they all seem to lead to a superior position for white in my analysis(I am not going into any details -there is a lot of complex stuff that would be very hard to find over the board.)and more importantly the opponent has now entered into a position where I know better what is going on. 

To your question, you will basically get the same answer from people that like sharp openings better.  It is more fun(for them at least, I would venture because that is what they are best at). 

Ok, I see what you mean.  Playing against someone who is "booked up" better than you is always difficult, and playing sharper lines means that any mistake will have a much bigger consequence.  I suppose the najdorf and the dragon are monsters in that respect.

And yes, the psychological aspect of steering the game into territory you prefer is huge. I forget the exact wording, but I think it was Seirawan who said that part of the beauty of chess is the clash of styles.  Indeed.

Sorry if I've strayed too much from the original topic.  The line you showed seems pretty interesting to me.  I've never heard anyone refer to anything in chess as filthy, but I like it.

np, any interesting comment is welcome.  ANd I hadn't thought about it.  But, yes I do like the word filthy with respect to chess as well. 

Truthfully, given your premise "But, if you are playing a young player (that is also a lot lower rated)", I wouldn't worry about having to play traps and tricks to win the game, especially with White.  If its a do or die game I play my main lines knowing I will win the battle on the board.  What I would probably do is pull out an old opening that's fun, perhaps a gambit, that I know will not do against equal or higher rated opponents and enjoy the game.

But to the question.  Well, first in the NICbase online I find that after 5. ... Nc6 the stats are:

17 White Wins, 31 Black Wins, 22 Draws for a score of 40%. Significantly lower than standard variations.  Now part of this could easily be that the White players are deviating from the ML because they are not as strong as their opponents and trying this ploy to level the field. 

Now 6. Nxc6 bxc6 does up it to 43% but not terribly convincing especially since 7. c4 drops it to 38.4%.  I would assume one reason Soltis says there isn't an antidote is it doesn't seem to have been played much.  Its not in the NIC base, but I did find one game in the Shredder base.  It's a draw.  Who needs an "antidote" if I, the "lot lower rated player" can draw with Black against my much higher rated opponent? 

BTW where did you come up with the name, chelyabinsk?

Isn't the chelyabinsk the name of one of the mainline sveshnikov variations?

People who prefer slow, positional chess don't play 1. e4.

I destroyed that once. :P

The Ruy is good for positional chess, there are lines of the Sicilian that are very positional, even in the Najdorf and Dragon you can direct it to less tactical lines.  6. Be2 in both is an example of this and might be a better choice for those that wish to steer clear of tactical bloodbaths relying on memorization.

Citing a line and giving it an evaluation without practical examples is mere air.  That is why, "further tests are needed" is a common line in opening works.  To say a given line is an advantage for white and then finding no games in which it leads to an advantage and/or win leads me to believe that the "advantage" is illusionary.  I proposed nothing I just followed your line.  Better to see a line as a draw based on one game than as a win based on 2 lines of analysis.

Gambit openings are not the same as tricks and traps.  King's Gambit, Evans, Morra, etc.   If you don't see that then we have very different definitions of the words involved. 

If you have not played the person before how do you know they've memorized the Dragon, Yugoslav to 20+ moves? If you do know this thre are better ways to handle it.

 I'm no master, and I'm still considered young, but I used to love the wood-pushing that bores me to death now. All you have to do to avoid the sharp lines is play a closed system. These are good for a prepared and flexible black player, but the patzers that only play the dragon because it's exiting will be shocked if you enter something like the King's Indian Reversed. Often they play such sharp lines because they lack the positional judgement to do anything else. One closed line should defend against any unprepared opponent.=)

Well considering you said it a draw and I never called it a win then that statement is kind of irrelevant.

But, you said a gambit WHICH YOU WOULDN'T USE AGAINST HIGHER RATED PLAYERS.  If I won't use it against higher rated players then I don't think it is sound and is hence a quote trick.

Play a hot novelty against a Najdorf or Dragon.  That really gets them thinking.  Maybe play something that is unsound correspondence, but nearly impossible to refute OTB

I like playing both sides of both.