Dragon vs Najdorf

I play and like Dragon

Both are theory intensive, but Dragon is less complex in a positional sense. Having played the Dragon for my first few chess years, and having learned a lot since then, I can confidently say that playing such an opening held back my development as a chess player.

Mike, I’m curious why you think the Dragon adversely affected your chess development. Is it because such openings don’t emphasize a classical control of the center?

There were two problems with playing the Dragon as a new player. The first was that the Dragon is strategically one dimensional, so I didn't get to expand my overall understanding of chess. The problem of the center is much more complex in other openings, including other variations of the Sicilian. The second problem was study time: in order to perform well, I felt it necessary to put many hours of study into the Dragon that could have been more profitably spent on positional play and endgames.

Since returning to chess a couple of years ago, after about 25 years away from the game, I have been filling in gaps in my knowledge that should have been known way back then. And those gaps have made me realize the error of focusing on a relatively narrow line to the exclusion of overall chess understanding.