Anti-English setup

I have had a lot of trouble with the English in the past so when I went on vacation last week I studied lines against it with Stockfish. 

Amazed yet?

Stockfish likes e5 straightaway but every English player knows plans against e5 while most black players don't have plans. Sos to suprisethe English player I like g6. When I got back I looked at the opening explorer and it actually has much bettter winning chances for black than e5 or Nf6.

• 1...Nf6

  35,926

  41%

  34%

  25%

• 1...e5

  22,627

  38%

  32%

  30%

• 1...e6

  15,449

  38%

  38%

  24%

• 1...c5

  12,870

  36%

  41%

  23%

• 1...g6

  11,106

  36%

  33%

  31%

• 1...c6

  8,169

  39%

  39%

  22%

• 1...f5

  3,582

  42%

  30%

  28%

• 1...b6

  1,561

  35%

  31%

  34%

• 1...d6

  807

  42%

  26%

  32%

• 1...Nc6

  398

  44%

  26%

  30%

• 1...d5

  55

  65%

  20%

  15%

• 1...g5

  32

  53%

  28%

  19%

These are the lines I looked at with stockfish:

I play Nc6 every time, its great for players who play an early g3.... 1.c4,Nc6 2.g3,d5! plus I can delay e5 but tend to play it sooner rather than later... of course 2d4 is hit with e5 and black has a nice position probably outside of the repertoire of the c4 player

Why stop at g6? 1.c4 g5 is a good move.  (Better than 1.g4 is for White, anyway - due to the pawn move c2-c3 being unavailable to White here)

Symmetrical english with e5 and a5 for life lol

Unless you want to prevent tactical blunders, looking at statistics to choose first moves is pure non-sense.

Rob3rt passed on that one, and I don't think I would be patient enough to explain the obvious tonight.

Edit:

Advice on the cheap: if you want to play something annoying against English players, open a book on the English to see it from the other side of the board.

=

=+

+=

+/-

-/+

+-

-+

Statistics? An engine does help however, for checking purposes.

he is so funny isn't he, why don't you buy a brain instead

Every single idiot knows that. Every idiot also is throwing stones from  the shore into the sea now and then, and not because he is aiming for the olympics but just for the fun of it, you know, how far will it go. But only a moron will think that the guy throwing some stones is expecting from this something more than just a pastime. I, for instance, was always wondering what was the favorite opening of the engine I've been using. Are you a moron Robert?

I suppose it can be a laugh to see what garbage software can come out with, and still evaluate as equal. For example the thing OP invented, if keep using software, will keep evaluating near equal. For a human, it's a rather unattractive grunfeld, not based on any conceptual ideas that a human can understand. Trying to use this opening in a OTB game, not likely to be a fun experience. Similar with stuff like 1.d4 e6 2Bf4 g5.

There was video about showing how Anand uses software for opening preparation. It gives an idea of the hard work needed to use software constructively. Entirely different process to what shown in these type of threads. For low rated like us, it is a waste of time to even attempt something like it.

Ok, that makes sense

I guess (hope) your teacher not only gave you a variation but also general strategical and tactical ideas to handle it.

So we need a teacher now.

Armada Invencible. What could go wrong?

The so called parasite has no money as of yet as to raise a court appeal and send someone to prison?

I play 1. ... c6 no matter what white's first move is. The ideas are pretty simple and straightforward and if white does choose something other than 1. e4 or 1. d4 it will usually transpose anyway.

1 f4

My repertoire against the Bird 1.f4 is basically nothing more than 2 games (one with only 18 moves before White resignation) and development schemes. So, polar bear or whatever, I'm not sure it would be a surprise weapon against any serious club player.

Moreover, I may be wrong but my modest personal experience with the Nimzolarsen (with 1.Nf3 first) makes me think it's a less risky move order than 1.f4 to reach the same kind of kingside attack (I'm not even sure the main tabiya of these two openings are different)

The purpose of playing 1.f4 in the first place is to ensure a closed position, however I'm not sure White can do it without handing to his opponent important positional concessions. In the end it's the purpose of the lost or gained tempo that matters. Certain manoeuvres with the knight are never questioned. Why? Because ultimately it's the purpose of the lost tempo that matters.