If I play the Bird's often, how well can I transition to the English?

I play the Bird's Opening (1. f4) almost exclusively, and I enjoy the kind of positions that arise from it.  However, I've been repeatedly advised by my peers to try something safer, and some have suggested that I try the English (1. c4), since it is also a flank attack and is less dangerous (it doesn't expose the kingside).  However, I've heard that the English tends to lead to very quiet games, which isn't really my style.  Is this true?  What lines and defenses would I need to know?  What are some good online resources?

My favorite line in the Bird's involves f4, Nf3, b3, Bb2, and e3.  It seems like this line would be effective as well (and safer!) with the fianchetto on the kingside and the c-pawn extended instead of the f-pawn.  Of course, I'm open to other lines as well.  Does the English sound like a good fit for me?  

Any help is greatly appreciated. 

I love Bird's Opening and I play it all the time.  Not only does it suit my style, it's a lot of fun.

A very enjoyable took is this one, by Tim Taylor.

If you're getting good positions out of the opening from it, then don't listen to your peers.  At the Master level and below, there is nothing wrong with giving someone the Bird. 

above poster is right. how well do you score with it?

i mean, i used to play the blackmar-diemer gambit, until i got to a level where it pretty much stopped working.
i believe in just doing what works for you, and once it stops working, then you can consider changing it. (of course that's debatable depending on what are your chess goals and whatever, yadda yadda, to each one his own)

on how well can you transition to the english... not sure, i think the themes are fairly different despite the apparent similarity (ie, in the english black can get d5 in much more quickly if he wants as opposed to e5 in the bird, and there isn't really a parallel for the typical english queenside pawn launch :P)

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not looking to replace the Bird.  But the reason I first started playing it is that at the level I play, nobody had seen it before and everybody was unprepared.  But I've played it so much that everyone is actually becoming comfortable playing against it.  I need another surprise weapon against those people, and perhaps an occassional opening for tournaments.  (In other words, I need to mix it up a little.)

There's not much reason to change opening.
People will be even more comfortable playing against an english than a bird, also you will be throwing away all your middle game and endgame knowledge you have built up from birds positions. Maybe you could try playing a different sub variation of the bird, like a stonewall transposition, maybe has a little suprise value and you also wont be wasting your experience, but will rather be building upon it.

If you are set on picking up a new opening and were to change to something else i'd recommend 1.b3. It has some lines that run something like this.

Which can look similar to some bird lines probably.
It is also safer, but will still be very suprising.

@Assault:  I've never really given 1. b3 much serious consideration--but I will now.  Thanks!

As for not changing openings, I played the Italian for years.  Then the Scotch, followed by the King's Gambit, followed by the Bird's and dabbling with the Reti.  Against 1. e4, I used to play e5, but now I play e6 and my favorite, d5 (more specifically, 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6).  Against 1. d4, I used to play d5, but now I play f5 (aiming for a reversed version of the system I mentioned in the first post) and e6 (aiming for 1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6, the English Defense).

I try to keep myself as versatile as possible.  I tend to play the same people a lot, so I need to be able to keep them on their toes. 

In tournaments, about 98% of games I see played (other than my own) are one of the following:

Italian Game
Ruy Lopez
Sicilian (Open or Smith-Morra)
Queen's Gambit

Even the French and the Scotch are rare.  I refuse to comply!  1. c4 would be a shocker to these people. Just like the Scandinavian Modern Variation, the Bird's, the Nimzo-Larsen Attack (1. b3), the English Defense, the Reti, even the King's Gambit.  One time, in a tournament game, I played 1. f4.  My opponent took four minutes just trying to figure out what his first move would be, before playing d5.  In fact, just to get these theory-addicted players out of their book, I would often play the dubious Sturm Gambit, 1. f4 d5 2. c4!?, and won most of the games.

In conclusion:  Unorthodox theory is lethal to most of my opponents, especially OTB.  That's why I need to be able to play several surprise weapons, so they don't get comfortable if I keep playing the same opening.  

(If any of this makes any sense. )

Ok.

If you play the english defense then playing 1.b3 makes even more sense, since the nimzo-larsen is just a reversed english really.

The english however is not much of a surprise opening, not sure what your tournaments are like but I'd bet once you are playing ay 1600 FIDE level everyone and their grandmother will have at least some preparation against the english.

The other problem imo is that it is much easier than other opening moves to prepare against. White doesnt get the plethora of opening plans available in 1.e4 or 1.d4, nor does he get most of the transpositional tricks available in the reti.

In the second paragraph, when you say "English", you mean 1. c4, not 1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6, right?  And you mean 1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6 in the first paragraph?  The name similarity makes your post a little confusing...

I need to do some more study of the Reti before I'm really comfortable with it.  One of my problems is that I really dislike e4-e5 and d4-d5 positions, and I worry about playing the Reti in case I have to transpose into one of the two.  Are there any lines Black can play in which White is given essentially no option but to transpose into one of these?

And if I become comfortable with 1. b3, I suppose I can try 1. g3?  With 1. f4, 1. Nf3, 1. b3, and 1. g3 combined, perhaps with an occasional 1. c4, I should be able to keep my opponents improvising straight out of the opening.

Also, White doesn't really get many options out of 1. f4 either.  That's why I'm hoping to combine lots of unorthodox first moves into a comprehensive repertoire.

Sorry in the second paragraph i mean the english defense with e6 and b6.

You would be surprised.  Most chess players I know don't even know what hypermodern chess is, let alone how to play against it.  They're so used to the openings I mentioned above, they panic when they see something else.  (I regularly get the complaint:  "Why can't you play some normal openings?")

If you stick to opening principles you'll probably be fine. Also even though you dislike symmetrical openings it's a good idea to watch games or something. Otherwise you could be unaware of a good time to start occupying the center and get favorable versions of those positions. With the Reti in particular you'll have to play e4 or d4 at some point and that will just lead to some pawn structure you could get from any e-pawn or d-pawn opening.

Sorry for my tardiness in responding.

I worry about the transpositions in the Reti being turned against me.  Do you know any lines that Black can play so that White has no good option but to transpose into a e4-e5 or d4-d5 setup?  How does one play against the Reti, exactly?

i used to play the reti a lot and i found people would just play their favourite 1.d4 set up against it, so you get a lot of slavs, a fair few kids etc. the only thing that used to make me transpose to a d4 line was when i met an early Nc3, which was fine as rather than my opponent getting in the e5 he was looking for i would just take it into a chigorin qgd.