Is The English Not for Everyone?

All Things Chess
1

When I first started playing Chess, the kindly Expert that got me started had me learn and play the English Opening as White. His logic was that I would force my opponents out of all their book knowledge with either 1. e4 or 1. d4, and have this as a forcing opening. This was back in 1988. I played this opening to a rating high of 1580, by 1990 - 1991. I then took a few lessons from IM Vivek Rao and he guided me to play 1. e4 with the statement that the English was too complicated or difficult for me at that time.

Recently, I went back to the English when I watched a video by Andrew Martin on the Botvinnik System of the English. THe first rated game or so, showed my “newness” and unfamiliarity to this opening. I lost a game or so that I should not have lost.

This past weekend I played it twice in the Quad I was in. I beat a lower rated player thanks to his blundering. I then played the last game against another player in my rating range. After the game the computer program showed I had a slight advantage. I did blunder and resigned as I was really tired and didn’t care to play on. The only thing that I could think of in both of my games on Sunday was that I really didn’t know or understand what the heck I was doing in the game. When I play 1. e4, I know to look for the typical strategies and tactics. Needless to say, the themes Andrew Martin showed in his video offerings were never even close to the things I saw over the board in my last 6 or so slow games.

Perhaps, I need to study more. Perhaps I need to see and hear what the stronger players that play the English would do in similar positions to me. I did buy and watch most of Nigel Davies DVD on the English. I also have the two Andrew Soltis and Tony Kosten books on the English. Once again the games I end up playing don’t ever resemble what they say will happen in these books and such.

So, what do you people think of the English?

I do know a couple of players that have stopped playing 1. e4 and started playing 1. d4 with good results in improving their play. One young fellow, Pete Karagianis, went from the high 1700’s to over 2200 with this opening switch.

Is the English so different from playing 1. d4 that it would not have the same effect?

Is the English an opening that only people rated above something like 2000 or so should attempt?

What do you people think?

2

I think the IM had good advice. The English is complicated, and contains a lot of subtleties that a lower rated player may not grasp.

I guess I don’t understand why you’d want to play it if it doesn’t fit your style. I switched to 1. d4 from 1. e4 at about 2000, because I started to realize that I didn’t like playing against 1…e5, 1…c6, 1…d5, and a lot of Sicilians. I like the positions I get in 1. d4 openings a lot more, so I feel more comfortable. It sounds like you prefer and are more familiar with the positions you get in 1. e4 openings. I don’t see why you want to force yourself to play the English.

3

not being one to study openings so deeply, i would venture into the English occasionally. I liked the fluid nature of the opening. It could morph into a lot of different things, and i was often able to control that. I was mainly a d4 player, but i had decent success on both sides of the English (as opposed to the Gruenfeld, which i never got a good game out of either side!).
So, I give the English a thumbs up. It seemed to fit my style.

4

Ron, as Black I think the English is a royal pain in the A–. I’ve been looking at meeting it with a Kings Indian setup. In limited use, it’s worked ok for me thus far. There is also a Scandinavian line that I need to look at in as much as I like to play the Center-Counter.

5

There’s a guy in our club who favors a particular variation of the English. Regardless of black’s response, he opens 1.c4, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, then usually follows with a knight move. We call it “Bill’s Opening.” He plays it all the time and has been doing so for years, so he can be dangerous with it. One more experienced player I know advocates replying symmetrically, but I’ve had some luck shutting it down with 1…e5, 2…Nf6 and 3…c6.

6

That line is standard from Andrew Soltis and Tony Kosten in their books on the English. Nigel Davies also promotes this way of playing the English. When I first started playing Chess and also the English I had Soltis’ first and then second edition of his book on this. As I said, I played it from being a beginner through having a 1580 rating in 1990.

I also started my Chess life playing the Nimzo-Indian Defense against 1. d4. I found I didn’t like playing that worse than the English. Maybe it’s the closed centers and such I didn’t/don’t like. But then again I still like and play the French Defense as I did from the beginning.

At being a 1700 player, I don’t know if I really know my style or not. I probably don’t.

In answer to the question of why I would want to play something I don’t do well with, if it’s because I don’t know the opening/system well then I better learn it and get better in that and overall as a player.

If, on the other hand, the English is too complicated for my small brain and level of play at this time, and playing something like 1. d4 would be better, then I’m all over that.

I have known and still do know a number of players that play the English. They all seem to dislike the c6 involved defense. I believe this would come under the Keres System as a defense to the English.

I have decided to look at 1. d4 openings to play. One of the fellows I mentioned earlier, Pete Karagianis, played the London System till he got to about a 2000 rating, then went to the full blown Queen’s Gambit. A couple of others that I know have also gone to the 1. d4 side with improved performance results.

I don’t know, I still kind of like the idea of playing the English though. Maybe it’s just some dark, deep seated chess-suicidal tendency I have.

7

A few thoughts.

While opening choice is viewed as a big thing by players at ratings below 2000, it really isn’t at that level. I have found what matters most is your mastery of tactics and enough of an understanding of positional play to get active piece play and deactivate your opponents pieces (Reading silman’s book a few times should be enough). Endgame knowledge would be right up there, and lastly openings.

While what opening you play itself doesn’t matter much at this level, switching openings can weaken you a lot. You may be a 1700 player with e4, but with c4 you never got above 1580 and you used it a long time ago. The opening you play effects your strategies, where you put your pieces, and your style of play. By switching you have to learn new ideas and get familiar with various situations that can arise against the new opening. Any kind of transition will take time and lots of work. Just watching a few videos wont be enough.

I personally play d4 99% of the time, so I obviously think switching here wouldn’t be a bad choice, but you would need to get used to playing hypermodern stuff like the indian defenses, and things like the c5 and e5 gambits, and of course the queens gambit declined and accepted (the accepted will really test your knowledge).

I think the english is as good an opening as any, and the expert is right it will take many out of their comfort zone. However, this mean you have to be familiar with how to set-up your pieces in the english system, what your goals should be, and be ready for people to go outside of book. Going outside of book really just tests your tactical and positional skills, because you should be getting an advantage and you just need to be able to exploit it.

8

Hi Ron. :slight_smile: I’ve been playing chess for many years and one of the most important things I’ve learned is that there are no, “good”, or, “bad”, openings. What works well for someone might not work well for someone else. It all depends on your style of play, which you say you don’t know. If I may, your style of play is using the openings you feel most comfortable with. If you use an opening you are not comfortable with, then it doesn’t fit your style and you should avoid it. I think the openings one chooses also can vary with their mood and that’s fine too. Lastly, I feel the best opening to use is the opening that will give your opponent the most difficulty either because they are not familiar with it, or the opening they have selected doesn’t tend to fair well against the opening you have selected. There are many things to evaluate when selecting an opening to use and that can vary widely.

I have played the English Opening for many years and it has a lot going for it, when used at the right time, as with any opening. Just yesterday I played an opponent I knew had a lot of success playing the Old Steinitz Defense against white’s 1. e4 and I didn’t feel I had prepared well enough for this opponent, so I switched to the English Opening, figuring he wouldn’t know it very well. My hunch was correct and my opponent was fumbling around the board, totally lost. When a player isn’t familiar with an opening their opponent is using against them, this can cause a big drop in confidence which usually leads to a loss. Emotions have a lot to do with winning or losing a chess game.

Because the English Opening is complex, keep in mind, it is also complex for your opponents. Complex doesn’t mean you are unable to master it though. Even traditional 1.e4 great Bobby Fischer switched to the English Opening in one of his games during his battle with Borris Spassky for the World Championship. Another chess great, Anatoly Karpov has had great success using the English Opening. I can recommend his book, “How to Play the English Opening”. He has this to say about the English Opening - “But when you want to avoid long theoretical variations and rely more on ‘understanding’, you wont come up with anything better than the English Opening. Here opening revolutions are rarely encountered and you don’t get such forcing variations on the board - indeed the price of a move is not as great as the majority of other openings”. Buy h is book and I think it will really help you to play the English Opening better. It’s only $21.95 and I think is a fantastic bargain.

With any opening, one must understand the principles behind it in order to succeed with it. The main idea of the English Opening is not to occupy the 4 center squares, (keeping your center pawns back), but to attack the center from the flanks. I have found that because of this, against an aggressive player, they tend to overextend themselves and they find themselves suddenly being slowly squeezed to death by the long tentacles of the English Opening. It’s as if white is saying to black, “Okay, come roaring down the center and I’ll collapse your flanks on you! Come down that gauntlet, I dare you!”. This is a successful tactic that is used on the battlefield as well.

Another advantage I have found with the English is that with keeping your center pawns back, this tends to afford very good protection for your King, which makes castling early not so critically important. The advantage of this is that you have essentially an extra move in hand to use in setting up an attacking position against your opponent. This extra tempo can be devastatingly effective.

                   I hope this helps you out.  :slight_smile:
9

Mihail Marin is very good at teaching ideas. Check out this book on the English.

Kosten likes it.