Which sicilian is more fun to play for black najdorf or dragon?

Just wanting opinions

If fun means a lively game with attacks and counterattacks, you'll probably have them more often with the Dragon, as many white players tackle the Najdorf with positional means.

Fun with dragon. Hard work with the najdorf as it has lots of theory, but it pays off.

I love playing the Dragon, it's basically a race to see who can bust up the King's Fortress first !

Dragon sheds more on blood on both sides of the game!

Imo, both are more fun for White. Tho I have played both as black quite a lot. In blitz the Dragon is definately more fun, being virtually undefeatable if White cannot replicate Karpov-Korchnoi (1-0) 1975/76 with the Yugoslav (aka Rauser) Attack. And (strangely) no one ever has during blitz in the last 22 years online. If anyone ever Does, then my next would be the Soltis lines or the Re8 line. Then if they win, I would switch to the Polugaevsky Najdorf. And if losing that, would pull out the Najdorf secret weapon from RJ Fischer vs Simul-player & Collister vs Sano. Being 1-0 & 1-0 but should Not be ... and if winning any games, then you can say "Aha, I found your weakness now; no need to play any more", claim final victory; never play that Sicilian-basher again; and then the Whole-Thing has been fun~! ha  ... }8-D

I play the dragon quite often with victories now and then. Its straightforward

& quite easy to play & good for beginners & intermediate players before moving to more complex variations  of the Sicilian.

fun = definitely the dragon

my preference = najdorf (because i derive more fun from winning ;) )

EDIT: i just personally find the najdorf better suited for my game as black.

I will echo all the others and say that the Dragon may be much higher on "fun" value, because it is pretty straightforward, but the Najdorf is the more competitive of the two.

the dragon is dead!(fun too play but dead) the white set-up is irreffutable. as bobby fisher once said "even masters beat grandmasters with it.white has way too much leeway in the center.

Any opening is playable at our level though, besides the question was which is more fun, not more solid.

if i am not winning i have no fun! give me the najdorf!!!!!!! 

I believe that was before black found a way to fight back. once fischer invented his "sac sac mate" stuff white had a massive edge. after he retired more ideas for black came about. now I think its swinging back to white, but never as much as the fischer era

Well I've tried both and the white player doesn't seem bothered by either. They seem equal in strength at the lower levels.

My vote goes to the dragon.

Well, I'm only a 1100-1200 player so not sure how much my opinion's worth. I started with the Dragon because by chance, that's the first in depth Sicilian youtube vido I watched. I got bothered by it because at the n00b level, white almost never castles queenside like typical Sicilian games. So, my fianchettoed bishop is doing nothing to attack the king. I switched to the Najdorf because I really liked the idea of denying Bb5 with a6 and contesting white's light square bishop's attempt to go to c4. Furthermore, when white castles king side, I could fianchetto my (black's) light square bishop and play the queenside knight to d7 to help out defending my centre pawns.

I really like the najdorf but was looking at a sample book excerpt The Taimanov by Wells 2012. Looked really interesting for black. Not real complex and seems easy to get out of the gate quickly and correctly.

I've always had more fun with the Najdorf... from both sides.

I like the Najdorf, because the g6 move in the Dragon is too weakening for my taste. Also the d6/e6 or d6/e5 centre gives black more influence.

There is no huge difference between the Yugoslav attack versus the Dragon and the English attack versus the Najdorf... Both will lead to sharp attacks, just carried out a bit differently of course.

Hurt nadjorf heal dragon