For those who have played the English.

1.  What do you like about it?

2.  If you played it for a while then stopped, why did you stop?

3.  Can you recommend books for an advanced beginner player?

For books I'm thinking:

Starting Out: English, McDonald. 

The Dynamic English, Kosten. 

If you've read my other posts you may know that I just have the KIA now as white, and am looking to expand my repertoire for white. I have the Pirc and KID as black and am happy with that for now as black. I'm gonna study the Reti a little further as I think it's a natural extension to the hypermodern knowledge I already have. I want to add some Colle-Zukertort to get some attacking tactics related to that opening. And now the English. I've got a blurb written on what interests me about the English, but I'm gonna withhold it for now, and am interested to hear about your experiences with it, per my questions above. Thanks.

I've been hearing very good things about Kosten's Dynamic English, it should be your best choice. And it's a repertuare book too, which is exactly what I'm looking for at the moment, and it also focuses mainly on the 2.g3 variations of the english, that's what I play exclusively as white.

 I play the 2.g3 English (I don't know much about others though) all the time because it's a system opening, not full of risky and tricky sub variations where you have to know every possible sharp continuation (like in the sicilian). I like semi-closed and positional games, it produces very similar positions against almost all continuations from black, and because most players at my level aren't too familiar with them, I believe it gives me a slight edge in the beginning.

I also like the hypermodern approach a lot (the fianchetto, delaying the central pawn pushes, controlling the queenside, etc.) With the English, I can hold against stronger players longer than I would in any other opening, and with even or weaker opposition, I seem to get out of the opening with advantage. These are the reasons I like it.

a couple of more points:

I also like not to have my knights block my c and f pawns (I prefer Ne2, instead of Nf3 in most variations), and I think it gives good chances for white to have a strong center, and when you're out of book, you always have more than one flexible plans in the middle game, like going for b4 in the queenside, or push the f pawn to f4 to have something going for a kingside attack. If none of these work, you can challenge black's two central pawns with your c and f pawns, which might give you some chance control the center too.

there are some very good notes on the english in the blog of Torkil.

I have played the english as my standard with white for several years now so if you want a game to practice just let me know.

I've been playing the english almost exclusively for quite awhile now. I like that people aren't as booked up on c4 as they are on e4 and d4. I like the fact that when players face it they usually play some crap subpar line or make "natural developing moves" and quickly get a worse position.

 

The best books I have read on the english are:

The Dynamic English (probably the single greatest book ever written on the english)

How to Play the English Opening by Anatoly Karpov (the best games collection ever assembled on the english)

Thanks everyone.  I appreciate your insights.  You describe the opening as I've pictured it.  diskamyl, thanks for the details, and recommendation on the Kosten book.   Eric, thanks for the recommendation on the Kosten book and also on the Karpov book. 

I submitted my order for the Kosten and McDonald books this morning, before Eric posted.  Darn, I thought about the Karpov book, too!  Oh well, I'll have my hands full for awhile anyway and can order it later.

PerfectGent, Torkil's blog looks good.  I started to read it last night.  Later I'll probably challenge you to an unrated game.  Thanks! 

So far nobody's posted along the lines of, "Yeah, I used to play that opening, but now I don't like it."  And I've never read that about the English. Yet it's not played by that many people.  Why is that?  In any event, I like the combo.  Solid and broad but not heavily played.  And it should be easy to relate the hypermodern aspects to what I've already learned.

I think I'm gonna enjoy playing the English.  Thanks again.

I guess I'll have to throw in my bit about not using the English, then. It leaves black with too many choices that lead to positions in which your opponent is at least somewhat comfortable. Simply put - too much theory.

 

The Reti, on the other hand, addresses my problems. It it often more free-form  and intuitive (who doesn't like arts and crafts?). White always plays a set of ideas based on personal preference and can use this to lead the inexperienced down a rough path.

In other words, the Reti can be used to "screw your opponent over" (for lack of a more sophisticated phrasing). If black dearly wants to play e5 in the opening - the ever enduring and stubborn annoyance - he is free to do so in the English. In the Reti, however, he must work to do so, often failing to reach his goal and receiving a suspect position in the process.

Why the Colle-Zuckertort and Reti are a good combination if you desire to steer the game away from your opponent's comfort zone:

I would never recommend the colle opening to anyone.

you're right about the annoyance black goes through with the urge to push the e pawn, but I still find the English more flexible because you have have the choice not to put the knight on f3, and annoy black with the long bishop diagonal after the fianchetto right from the beginning, eyeing on the b2 pawn (and annoying black, this time about developing its queen's bishop).

I took a look at that "starting out: english" at a bookstore today and it looks really good. I might pick it up in the future just to have some more well annotated english games to go over.

I don't play the English as white, but a couple guy's at my chess club play it all the time, it never gives me any problems, and we're all rated about the same. I not saying the opening is unsound, because it is. I think the English allows me to play in manor that really compliments my style of play. Most of the games I play go as follows 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 as black this is exactly what I want I can develop my king side pieces quickly and have made a claim in the center. So maybe having an alternate opening to play in case you run into somebody like me( ps the Reti gives me all kind of problems).

pvmike, it's good to get counterpoints in here.  Thanks.

My first thought is, well, maybe I'd play 1.Nf3 then c4 and Nc3 against you.  But I suppose that's the Reti, not the English, and that's the point of your last sentence.  In the English white seeks to control d5 (with c4, Nc3, and Bg2 as well in the hypermodern variations) and concedes e5, which plays into your preferences.  (I'm just practicing thinking this through.  I don't have the books yet but recalling some of the info from the excerpts on Amazon.)

This is a sidetrack, but I'm curious, how do you feel about playing against the KIA?  Black gets to play d5 there, and e5 doesn't seem heavily discouraged, though in a lot of games black doesn't play it.  In fact in a lot of games white either pushes e5 or occupies e5 with his knight.  This is a further sidetrack, but there's something about the white-e4/black-d5  pawn dynamic in the KIA that I'm not yet entirely comfortable with.  If Emms explains that dynamic well in his book, "Starting Out: Kings Indian Attack," I've missed it.

I'm laughing about the Reti giving you trouble, because I have two books coming on that, too ;).  Something tells me I'd need more than a couple books and some opening theory to beat you, though. 

Actually, two points in my reply to pvmike give me some clarity in my preferences for an opening.

1.  I prefer a flanking game.  I'm happy to lock the center, or clarify it in some way that it can be ignored, in favor of battling on the flanks.  I'm also happier to attack the center with an early c-pawn, or possibly an f-pawn a little later, than to battle it out using d and e.  An f-pawn push is exciting too if my opponent has castled on the King side. A center game feels like there's too many possibilities;  a tactician's game.  I'd rather try to direct the game to limit it to a few good ideas on the flanks, then play aggressively to beat my opponent in a race to bring one of those ideas to fruition.  If I understand the position better than my opponent, then I have an advantage there, too.  I think part of my lackluster feeling about the KIA is the white-e4/black-d5 pawn dynamic and the sometimes open game that can result.

I think at least some of the English lines facilitates my preferences.  I'll be finding out.  I like the idea of the early c4 anyway, and the hypermodern aspects. 

2.  A really good text book is almost a prerequisite.  I've got great books on the Pirc and Kid.  The book on the KIA is not bad, but not great IMO, possibly because there just isn't that much theory to be described in the KIA.  The books on the English look great, the little bit I've been able to see so far.  I think if the opening is both positional and contains a lot of theory, there tends to be some great books on them.  KID and English, for example.

I've played it for a year or two. 1.c4 demands flexibility--it's great if you're equally prepared for tactical melees or strategic struggles, depending on the whim of your opponent. If you prefer a strategic game then 1.Nf3 may be a better choice. Donaldson discusses both ways of approaching the English so it's a good starting point.

> 1.  What do you like about it?

I'm more familiar with the positions than my opponent. This especially bites opponents who aim for the sharper ...e5 lines and then play 'natural moves'.

> 2.  If you played it for a while then stopped, why did you stop?

n/a

> 3.  Can you recommend books for an advanced beginner player?

There's no comprehensive, intemediate, up-to-date book on the opening--Chessbase has been the most reliable source for move orders and fleshing out my repertoire, although Starting Out: The English and Play The English are quite useful.

Two things happen whenever I play against the english.  Either it transposes into a d4 opening whenever White wants, or he plays a Reti setup. 

Don't forget Aquaman that "the dynamic english" uses the accelerated fiancetto move order in the english. 1.c4  2.g3, as opposed to the more usual move order of 1.c4 2.Nc3. This is to avoid a lot of mainlines and create a more thematic repertoire.

I prefer to stay fairly mainline. What is a mainline move? It's the move most people make--which means it's usually theoretically best and there are more sample games to learn from. By opening 1.c4 or 1.Nf3, you have already taken the game outside your opponent's comfort zone (unless he also happens to be a c4/Nf3 player). Before I had Chessbase, I tended to avoid mainlines, but now I like them. I have not read Kosten's book but I've been told it's good (although a few lines lines need updating).

Yea Kosten's book was written in 2000 so it's a wee bit out of date, but it's IMO the best place to start in the english and if you're under 2000 it will probably be the only opening book you'll ever need for white (if you decide you like the english).

 

I like to stay mainline too, but lots of GMs play the accelerated fiancetto move order as it avoids the hedgehog and other annoying systems. Actually, GM Nigel Davies played a vote chess game against chess.com recently and used the accelerated fiancetto english. He kicked the crap out of us too! (although I must say the chess.com community played the opening like crap).

Eric, thanks.  I knew from reading reviews, and diskamyl's comments above, that Kosten uses Bg2 to discourage a lot of black's possibilities and builds a thematic repertoire around it, but I hadn't internalized that it needed to be as fast as 2.g3, 3.Bg2.  I haven't looked inside the book yet.  Should arrive approx. this weekend.  Is 1.c4, 2.Nc3, 3.g3 too slow to meet the objective? 

By the way, I remember some of the hedgehog position from the excerpts in McDonald's book.  That's where black builds a mini pawn center on d6 and e6, right?  I just mention this to illustrate, for my own satisfaction if nothing else, that I'm tending to absorb information on the English more efficiently than I do on some openings.  So to some extent I'm looking into the English to follow the rule, "In chess as in life, do what interests you."

There's nothing wrong with 2.Nc3, its just that in some systems the knight is not ideally placed on c3...or sometimes it helps to delay the development of the knight. A lot of the time black wants to play his king's bishop to b4, and take the knight on the c3 giving white doubled pawns. To be honest I don't know why everyone doesn't use the accelerated fiancetto move-order, as it seems to cut down on the number of black options quite a bit.

 

Here's an example of the advantage of 2.g3

 

In the usual move order a very popular system is this:

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 Bb4 and black's aim is to trade his bishop for white's knight and attack the weakened doubled pawns.

In the accelerated fiancetto move order white has a good option here:

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5! and the bishop covers the d5 square, allowing white to play this nice move.

 

Also the accelerated fiancetto move order confuses a lot of black players who have one line they play against the english but don't really understand. For example, in the reversed dragon black is required to play Nb6 to stop white from playing an early d4 with advantage. However, in delaying Nc3 you often confuse the black player who thinks the only reason you're supposed to play Nb6 is to prevent an exchange of knights, so they play some crap moves instead.

For example:

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.0-0 and here white should play Nb6 preventing d4, but since there is no knight on c3, and they dont understand the position (they've only memorized the line) they often play 6.Be7 allowing white to play 7.d4 with advantage.

ericmittens> There's nothing wrong with 2.Nc3, its just that in some systems the knight is not ideally placed on c3... To be honest I don't know why everyone doesn't use the accelerated fiancetto move-order, as it seems to cut down on the number of black options quite a bit.

I can explain why after 1.c4 e5, 2.Nc3 is played four times as often as 2.g3. First, c3 is almost always the optimal square for the knight especially now that that move doesn't block the c-pawn while g2 is only usually the optimal square for the bishop. Also rememeber why there's a maxim, knights before bishops.

(A small aside: placing the king's knight is more commital than placing the queen's knight because in some lines we may want to play a Botvinnik with f4.)

This leads to the second point, it's easier for Black to draw against a premature g3 if that's what he's content with. For example, 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Bxd2 6.Qxd2 d6 leads to 45% draws while 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 followed by 4.g3 or 4.e3 or one of several other moves lead to 35% draws. Kosten has grappled with how to handle this early equalizing line several times since writing the book.

ericmittens> A lot of the time black wants to play his king's bishop to b4, and take the knight on the c3 giving white doubled pawns.

That's what Black tries for in the Shirov Attack. Luckily, White also has a say: 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4!? White has a variety of moves here, including 3.Nd5 saying "no way jose" or 3.g3 / 3.Nf3 saying "ok, i'm willing to take on doubled pawns in return for your bishop pair, open b-file, and better central control".

ericmittens> 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 Bb4 and black's aim is to trade his bishop for white's knight and attack the weakened doubled pawns.

4.g3 is quite sharp and theoretical. If you want something more positional, there's 4.e3 which was favored by Karpov and takes the sting out of ...Bb4 and ...e4 and several other practical options. Black will not be prepared for them all at the class level and the subtle differences provide room for creativity.

ericmittens> Also the accelerated fiancetto move order confuses a lot of black players who have one line they play against the english but don't really understand.

I find most people who play against the English expect a kingside fianchetto so they are often surprised when I don't. There is nothing wrong with the 2.g3 line, I'm just pointing out why the mainline is the main line.