Sicilian Dragon vs Najdorf - Which is better?

Najdorf is better

indeed. Obviously, I lean towards the Najdorf as it's abit more adaptable as committing to a fianchetto-type Kingside formation involves a certain fortitude. (I avidly play the KID vs 1. d4 btw heh)

All sorts of Kingside attacks pervade any line of thinking when playing the Dragon. White has too much of a free hand in deciding the course of play to me.

As Najdorf players we can actually delay castling for abit or even fianchetto depending on how play is going

However, once you commit to the Dragon you give away any intentions and as such tend to struggle just to equalize.

As someone who plays nimzowitsch sicilian seriously I really don’t like this kind of thinking. It’s sound enough on its own and the line doesn’t need any bullet chess justification that would only make people think worse of it.

My biggest concern about playing the Dragon (as Black) is the weakness of the d5 square.

In the Najdorf, this isn't a problem since Black can play e6 with a Scheveningen center.

It's basically the same as the alekhine, to hope white overextends. But as pfren has said above, the most testing variation is e5 followed by Nc3, when both Nxc3 and e6 aren't too great. 

For example, Nxc3 leads to a loss of tempo for black - he moves his knight three times and trades it for white's newly developed knight. While e6 is a different kind of animal-

So I decided to science this, because I like data-driven answers to empirical questions more than people idly giving their views based upon their personal opinion or conventional wisdom. I split the analysis into two groups and data is from that web site that starts with an L because this website has no such data publicly available.

Full disclosure: I don't care what the results say, I was just curious. I don't play the Sicilian anymore, and have no personal preference at all. I'm not trying to prove anything.

Group 1 (which I will call "Low" includes 1600-1800 ratings) and Group 2 (which I will call "High" includes 2200-2500). I left out the middle group. Here's what the data say:

Low Group:

Dragon: 46/49 (win white/win black)

Najdorf: 47/48

High Group:

Dragon: 46/47

Najdorf: 49/45

Basically the data show very little difference, which was what I expected. What actually did surprise me was that the Najdorf performed more poorly for black than the Dragon did in the High group, which goes against conventional wisdom. The numbers are small, but they are there.

I'd say the biggest takeaway is that if you think you should switch from the Dragon to the Najdorf because you've gained rating, think you're ready for it, and think you'll do better, you're probably wasting your time. I think the conventional wisdom is once again being colored by what grandmasters at the highest levels do, and as we should all know, that doesn't ever really apply to us.

Interesting.  However, if you take the master's database, it turns out that the Najdorf scores significantly better:

So it seems that it takes a lot of skill and a slow time control to exploit the dragon...

@Jenium - Of course, that doesn't surprise me at all. Ever since the "sac sac mate" meme that Bobby started, the Dragon has been a bit of a running joke amongst GMs, and playing it is seen as proof that you're not a serious player. I don't know of any GMs who are taking their cues from what people in forums say about openings, though.

But if you're an 1800 player thinking you should switch because one is better than the other, you're almost certainly wasting your time. Wait until you get a title and then you can start thinking seriously about it, unless you absolutely *have* to play what "real" chess players play. Some people are like that.

White's winning percentage.

Yes, I was just about to delete my post.

c5>e5 by a little

I suggest the dragondof!!!

It has a bit of dragon and a bit of najdorf. The best part is that is is very fun to play

Is the Dragon improved by a6? Is the Najdorf improved by fianchettoing the KB?

In a few lines. Like the (uncommon) 6. Bd3 or (super-uncommon) 6. a3 lines of the Najdorf.

But no, not usually.

I looked into the Nimzo-Sicilian, unfortunately, the fact that you have to worry about 5. Ne4 lines on top of Rubinstein Countergambit lines kind of killed it for me. If I could run 8… d6 temporarily sacrificing a second pawn safely as Black every game, only needing to worry about the difference between 11. Qh4 and 11. Bc4, then I’d at least consider it, but being forced to play f5 so I can trade off a knight that I’ve moved twice prior doesn’t appeal to me.

ur 400 ELO, I don't suggest you start on Sicilian yet.

Unorthodox openings usually will have one side make some sort of concession. You can't break principles that easily! Anyways, time passes, opinions change, I play the Kalashnikov now.