Neither is better or worse. It is a matter of preference and understanding. Also, you haven’t played any games here. If u are under
1800 ELO or so playing the Najdorf and really understanding it is not possible. I’d say that probably the tactics and theory of the Dragon is not so good if you are under 1600 or so.
1800 ELO or so playing the Najdorf and really understanding it is not possible.
I don't agree. There are great books out there on the Najdorf catered to players in the 1200-1800 range that do an amazing job of explaining all the ideas.
Najdorf is probably sounder than the Dragon, but since I'm completely biased I'm saying dragon is better subjectively and objectively (if you like sharp games)
1800 ELO or so playing the Najdorf and really understanding it is not possible.
I don't agree. There are great books out there on the Najdorf catered to players in the 1200-1800 range that do an amazing job of explaining all the ideas.
Personally I think you need to be 1600 elo to understand the najdorf, when to do stuff and when not to.
But I don't play it, so I'm not the best source around 
Both are entirely sound, and both are very difficult to handle- for different reasons: The Najdorf due to its positional complexity, and the Dragon because of the overwhelming amount of theory, in situations where a small mistake can prove fatal. The Dragon is much easier to understand for a post-beginner.
Please give us an example world champ, great one.
The Sicilian Dragon is for brave souls. If White plays the dreaded Yugoslav Attack then both players can look forward to a bloodthirsty battle. The White player usually scores decent with the g3 variation altough it's underrated.
On the other hand, the Sicilian Najdorf is an ideal weapon for ambitious players who are not frightened of learning opening theory. Traditionally, 6.Bg5 has been the most aggressive and theoretical response to the Najdorf. One of Black’s responses to this is the notorious Poisoned Pawn Variation, a favorite of both Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov.
All in all, these two openings are extremely reputable and your preference may depend on your style of play.
I remember reading from a chess magazine last century Kasparov recommending the Dragon for intermediate players. Go Dragon!
You must have some serious financial interest in that site :/
I say the Najdorf. I play it myself and since I play 1.e4 with White I probably have more success against the Dragon than any other Sicilian option.
1800 ELO or so playing the Najdorf and really understanding it is not possible.
I don't agree. There are great books out there on the Najdorf catered to players in the 1200-1800 range that do an amazing job of explaining all the ideas.
Personally I think you need to be 1600 elo to understand the najdorf, when to do stuff and when not to.
But I don't play it, so I'm not the best source around
I was just nitpicking but my issue is with the "impossible" word. I see no reason why any player at least above 1200 who studies a Najdorf book like the one recently released by John Doknjas won't have a very good understanding of the opening.
Well, I consider both Najdorf and Sicillian as Bad, and better for white, or if you just keep preparing for years then its fine as its very sharp better is the Nc6 OR e6 variation on the 2nd move.
I've been playing the Najdorf for the past year and a half, and I often find myself in situations around the early middlegame (move 12 ish) where the white pawn storm is hitting me faster than I can strike back on the queenside, and I don't handle it too well 
Then again, I've heard that the dragon is even worse than the Najdorf in terms of facing that dreaded pawn storm and having to defend perfectly if you want to survive. So I'd steer well clear of that.
I've been playing the Najdorf for the past year and a half, and I often find myself in situations around the early middlegame (move 12 ish) where the white pawn storm is hitting me faster than I can strike back on the queenside, and I don't handle it too well
Then again, I've heard that the dragon is even worse than the Najdorf in terms of facing that dreaded pawn storm and having to defend perfectly if you want to survive. So I'd steer well clear of that.
"I dont believe in Dragons"- One of the greatest players of all time - Robert James Fischer
I've been playing the Najdorf for the past year and a half, and I often find myself in situations around the early middlegame (move 12 ish) where the white pawn storm is hitting me faster than I can strike back on the queenside, and I don't handle it too well
Then again, I've heard that the dragon is even worse than the Najdorf in terms of facing that dreaded pawn storm and having to defend perfectly if you want to survive. So I'd steer well clear of that.
"I dont believe in Dragons"- One of the greatest players of all time - Robert James Fischer
Wanna back that up with some variations
In Kasparov vs Anand World Chess Championship, Kasparov scored 2 wins using the Dragon.
Yeah but in today's time theory is more developed and in the earlier days, Fischer crushed the dragon easily with a early flank attack and so white is attacking throughout the game and its a very sharp line where anyone who makes a inaccuracy loses. Thats why people dont prefer dragon now.
I was told by a GM recently to stop playing the Najdorf because it's too complicated for me. I totally agree. The Sicilian Najdorf is a very complicated opening and one needs extensive study in order to do well in it. Sicilian Dragon on the other hand needs a lot of memorization because if you mess up... there goes your king. I recommend the accelerated dragon as it doesn't allow such crazy attack by white and is simpler in comparison to the two above openings.
I've been playing the Najdorf for the past year and a half, and I often find myself in situations around the early middlegame (move 12 ish) where the white pawn storm is hitting me faster than I can strike back on the queenside, and I don't handle it too well
Then again, I've heard that the dragon is even worse than the Najdorf in terms of facing that dreaded pawn storm and having to defend perfectly if you want to survive. So I'd steer well clear of that.
"I dont believe in Dragons"- One of the greatest players of all time - Robert James Fischer
Wanna back that up with some variations
Yeah this variation is the most challenging one imo:
I've been playing the Najdorf for the past year and a half, and I often find myself in situations around the early middlegame (move 12 ish) where the white pawn storm is hitting me faster than I can strike back on the queenside, and I don't handle it too well
Then again, I've heard that the dragon is even worse than the Najdorf in terms of facing that dreaded pawn storm and having to defend perfectly if you want to survive. So I'd steer well clear of that.
"I dont believe in Dragons"- One of the greatest players of all time - Robert James Fischer
Wanna back that up with some variations
Yeah this variation is the most challenging one imo:
I was referencing the guy who quoted RJF.
I’d advise you, as someone who plays the White side of your Najdorf line quite a bit, that you would do better keeping your king in the center for a bit. I would finish development with Nbd7, b5, and Bb7 before castling (or maybe not, as a pawn storm like the one you showed could be possible). Sometimes Black never castles in The Najdorf, and I think you should look into some no castling lines.
Hello, I am deciding to add the Sicilian Defense to my repertoire. Which of the two is the most effective?