Learning the english opening

Because you're just memorizing. You don't WHY you're playing them. You're that type of person who says they know the Sicilian Dragon when in reality, you know the first two moves.

He is naive, and just assumes rating equates to opening knowledge.  Players of the same rating can be the same for different reasons.

I did not look to see what your ratings actually are, but let's take a 2000 player (i.e. myself, based on over the board rating - 2024).

Now let's look at a 1700 player, a 2300 player, and a 2700 player.

The 2700 player is going to be strong in all aspects of the game, and so there is need to compare one 2700 from another.

The lower the rating, the greater the variance in ability.  What is NOT true is ratings being linear.  To say that the 2300 is better than the 2000 who in turn is better than the 1700 in ALL of the following categories is hogwash and an incorrect statement:

• Tactics
• Positional Play
• Strategy
• General Opening Principals
• General Endgame Principals
• Dragon Theory
• Double Rook Endgames

And the list could go on.  Instead, ratings indicate more how many weaknesses you have.  Think of it as everyone starts at 2700 and then deduct points from each category based on weakness level.

Take the 1700 player.  He may be an up and coming player who is really strong at tactics, better than the 2000 or even the 2300 player, but he has no concept at all about openings, strategy, positional play, or endgames.  If he can win a pawn, and it does not fail to a "tactic", he will take it and think he is better because he is up material.

The 2300 player has far fewer deficiencies than the 1700 play, despite the fact that he may be tactically weaker than the 1700.  Not saying he is "weak", just not as tactically sharp as the 1700.  However, he understands a wide array of openings, has a very strong knowledge of chess strategy, and knows his endgames.

Then take me, the 2000.  This does not mean I am weaker than the 2300 and stronger than the 1700 in all categories.  It simply means I probably have more weaknesses than the 2300, and fewer than the 1700.  Here are some of my strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths:

• A full understanding - not memorizing - of a handful of openings - French, King's Indian, Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined - There are likely some 2300 players out there that do not understand the French as well as I do.
• A partial understanding (knowing some lines, not all - sufficient for White as you only need a line against most openings) of many other openings - Sicilian, Caro-Kann, Italian, Alekhine, Scandinavian, Pirc/Modern, Slav, QGA, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, etc.
• Strong (not flawless) endgame knowledge
• Decent with strategy and positional play
• Finding candidate moves
• Positional Sacrifices

Weaknesses:

• Tactically weak (worse than many "young" 1700 players)
• Poor understanding of positions that arise from certain openings, such as the Grunfeld, Dragon, and Modern Benoni
• Poor with handling of positions that feature the mobile pawn center (see Grunfeld, for example)
• Time Management

So the main point is, rating does not equate to level of understanding of EVERY category in a linear fashion, and so his questioning of your opening knowledge based on rating is asinine.  You could be an opening guru, and be totally clueless about rook endings (Lucena's Position, Philidor's Draw, the Short Side Defense, or the one that starts with a V that I am drawing a blank on against a rook pawn on the 6th rank where if White has an a6-pawn, and the Black King is far away (g7), Black's line of defense is to have the Rook on the f-file.)  Not saying you are pathetic at rook endings, just saying the possibility is there, and that might explain your rating rather than opening knowledge like he claims.

@thrillerfan So, a 2700 player is weaker at tactics than a 1700 player. I guess.

Lol... good retort!

Retarded retort is more like it.

Notice I compared the 1700, 2000, and 2300 players, not the 2700 player.  I said the 2700 is going to be strong at all aspects!

Read before giving such a retarded response!

I also never said that ALL 1700s fit this mold, or that ALL 2000s fit another mold.

You could have a 2000 that sucks at opening theory or endgames or strategy as opposed to tactics.

The whole point is that ratings are not black and white, and so for you to make a statement making it sound like it is Black and White is retarded!

The English is really more of an avenue into chess theory then an opening

Since pfren has not chimed in yet with an answer as to why he has this opinion, I'll venture a guess that it's because that Vampire business (1. c4 e5 2. f4) looks like total crap. The transpositions into serious openings played for decades by actual GMs are a good collection of reasons, but will require more opening prep than just playing the plain old English. The English is notorious for being a transposition highway, so good luck with all that.

Transpose to what? A losing position?

All that utter crap mentioned in the post comes from a specific Youtube channel which is just about the worst way to introduce chess to beginners.

You mean you know Gothamchess's channel ?

Have you ever played a Vampire ?

Also you're last sentence @DrSpudnik "The English is notorious for being a transposition highway , so good luck with that" is exactly what I meant by "The English is more of an avenue into chess theory than an opening" my last sentence!

Now what exactly do you mean and exactly how am I like those people ?

I think I played a few zombies. 

What do you mean by "you played a few zombies" ? and also what is the "Zombie Opening" ? @DrSpudnik

Why not? You learn the ins and outs of a position, you find out the best strategies to suit the position, you see what an advantage looks like.