Why do you play the english opening (1. c4) instead of 1. d4 or 1. Nf3?

I find that if you choose not to transpose to a d4 opening, that English games tend to follow long-term strategic plans better than most other openings.  If you favor that sort of a contest over an early tactical melee, I think c4 suits.

On the other hand, if you DO like to use it as a transpositional weapon, opening with say 1.c4 2.Nc3, then it allows you to play the more aggressive d4 openings, without forcing you to deal with the Nimzo.

So after 1.c4 e6, 2.Nc3 d5, you can push d4, and still get a favorable QGD exchange.  Whereas after 1.c4 e6, 2.Nc3 Nf6, you can keep it in independent waters if you choose.

---

I see.

What about 1. Nf3 in comparison? It can also be used as a transpositional weapon but also as an independent opening can't it? What's the difference? Which is sharper and which is slower?

Well, 1. Nf3 is almost purely transpositional in modern praxis.  (Mind you, "almost.")

Very, very generally, when you talk about transposing with either 1.c4 or 1.Nf3, you're talking about transpositions into 1.d4 type games.  And more specifically, into games which would otherwise begin 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nc3 or 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nf3.

The first set (those with 3.Nc3) includes opportunities for the Ne2 QGD exchange, the Samisch or 4-pawns KID, the Taimanov/flick-knife benoni, the Marshall against the triangle/semi-slav, the Geller gambit against the slav, and the like.  On the down side, it also allows the Nimzo, which is often considered black's strongest possible reply to d4.

The second set can see you forced into less overtly aggressive QGD's, and benonis that set your opponent fewer problems.  It limits your choices against the KID (though aggressive options remain).  But instead of Nimzos, you're looking at QID's (and more QGD's) against the e6/Nf3 crowd.  All in all, the games from this second set have a much more positional flavor.  This isn't necessarily bad...just may not suit one's particular style of play as well.

And naturally, at low-to-middle levels of play, any game can turn tactical in a heartbeat.  But if you get to the point where you're playing mainlines 20 moves deep, or you aspire to get to that level AND want to use your current openings to get there, so that when you do, you'll be well versed in them, then generally speaking the complex of games that arise from Nc3 "tend" to be more tactical than Nf3 games.

FWIW, people do all kinds of gymnastics to avoid Nimzo's, on the pretense that it increases their winning chances if they can avoid it.  I love playing white against the Nimzo.  I almost always end up in double-edged, hotly contested battles.  Which, yes, I lose my fair share of.  But the enjoyment more than makes up for that.  (Incidentally, this is the same reason I enjoy the open sicilian as white.)

Anyway, hope some of that helped.

The English is very transpositional and I love the art of steering the game to the kind of opening I like. It is often regarded as dull but explosive lines appear in every stand of the English. I have only recently started playing a gambit line against Dutch stlye setups and it is devestating in Blitz, many quick wins. There are also many tactics and untestested lines in every major line eg 4Qa4 in the four knights e5 variation and the Flohr Mikenas attack. The only thing I don't like about it is the name! We Scots really have to get over the Battle of Culloden!

Hmm yes very intresting. Is there anything that 1. c4 avoids that 1. Nf3 has to face?

Mostly early d5 lines and c6 variations. I agreer that Nf3 is malleable too but for me personally allows black more leeway in the transpositions. With c4 the direction of the opening is more in whites' hands.

There are always things you avoid or confront, if you make certain moves.  With 1.c4, you can avoid the d4 openings you don't want to face, but you may well find yourself in a symmetrical English (a whole branch of theory stemming from 1.c4 c5) or a King's English (1.c4 e5).

With 1.Nf3, you can get a favorable setup against the Dutch, and you avoid the Nimzo, but you eliminate certain advantageous options you would have had by playing Nc3 early while holding off on Nf3.

But again, in general, I don't think there are too many things that 1.Nf3 players dread seeing as a first or second move reply.  You just have to be ready for the possibility of a quieter game, should your opponent choose to go that way.  Because your first move certainly isn't a forcing one when you play that way.

I do, however, enjoy 1.Nf3 c5, 2. e5! steering a presumably quiet start into an open Sicilian.

It's all give and take.

With Nf3 you've put your N in front of your f2 pawn. Thus, should want to play a Botnivikk setup

you can't because you have the f3N in the way. For me, c4 offers more transpositional possibilites than Nf3 andI seldom enter into move-ordered lines. Of course, Nf3 prevents the immediate e5, so you have to choose which lines you want to avoid and which ones you want to be able to play. And yes, avoiding the Nimzo-Indian lines was a major reason for me to play the English.

Ah ok. So one good thing about 1. Nf3 is that it is quite good against 1. ... f5. Ok but generally it seems that 1. c4, 2. g3, 3. Nc3 avoids many annoying black responses from what I've understood. I don't mind playing the pure english variations at all I think. I need to try it out some more.

Is the english a good opening against people that are not booked and just play out their 5 starting moves like in the KID, QID or whatever they play against d4?

Anyone think the new Marin's GM repetoire trilogy will be good? I think the first book is out and covers 1. c4 e5. (the other two will cover 1. c4 c5 and rest of the responses)

I think the English is less studied than e4/d4 openings.It is fairly intuitive,soI'd say it is a good opening for those who don't want  to learn a lot of theory, right out of the gate. As far as Marin's books, I have the English Opening, vol. 1, and highly endorse it. Also, you will find a wealth of info in John Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings, vol 3, (Gambit Pub) which is on the English. Watson,IMO, is one of the best authors and theoreticians around. In addition, I'd rec. Starting Out: The English  by Neil McDonald (Everyman Chess) to get you up and running.I like the Everyman starting out series and the one on the English is ,IMO,a cut above most in the series.

It's not 1.e4 and 1.d4.

You can get by on ideas alone and there's all sorts of cool stuff you can learn by playing it. You learn lots of cool "mysterious rook moves" that help you for some reason six turns later and you get better at building up your position slowly rather than going for Bxf7...

I like it because you keep all of your pieces on for a long while and then once the middlegame comes the game blows up and there are tactics everywhere. But you wouldn't even know from the first few moves.

Add that to the fact that people are going to play weird stuff to try and avoid it and you get yourself a pretty good weapon with the White pieces and a safe setup to use with the Black pieces when White tries funny stuff.

I tried the english, but for me it's just not an aggressive enough way to fight for an advantage. Inevitably black will be somewhat comfortable given more space, he just shouldn't overdo it being black. I used to think that black was better in the english a long time ago! That is not the case, but if you're ok with equalizing with modest counterplay, there is nothing to worry about (except that if you're not good positionally it may be hard to handle on either side, especially black).

I like getting a small positional advantage out of the opening. Oftentimes when this happens you're the only one with an active plan that must be reacted to.

"and you get better at building up your position slowly rather than going for Bxf7..."

That is what I get with 1 d4. What I like about d4 is that he almost always has more space or is at least not down in space (or if he is black has pawn weaknesses to compensate), and he can slowly build up a strong position. Black often doesn't have many favorable tactics unless he makes concessions (like playing the inferior albin countergambit for example). With the english black is given more freedom to do what he wants.

I'm not saying it's a bad choice for any amateur though, this is just my preference.

I played the English OTB for many years as a club player and it has served me well. It's much more flexible than 1. Nf3. I found that most amateur's do not play well against it since its much more positional. That's on the plus side. The minus side is that its much more positional so you really need to know how to play it. But at least your are not blown off the board it the first dozen moves.