Should beginners play the English?

Yes, absolutely. The main advantage of the English is its versatility. But there is no reason to be "versatile" and transpose to variations which you don't know, or you think you know but can't really understand.

Thank you all ^_^

I think any opening is OK if you like it better than your opponent does. 

I mean, it's not about running at the speed of light, it's about running faster than the bear chasing you.  

All you really need is basic knowledge how to play against English. If you have plenty of time to invest in smth other than tactics or endgame try to study simple strategic ideas from famous players of the past (Chigorin, Tarrasch, Steinitz especially).

I agree with what many have already said...as far as getting down the basic concepts of the opening game (1. Force; 2. Space; 3. Time; and 4. Pawn Structure); but DO explore the English opening by all means...you don't have to wait to do this. There is a vast amount of information available...especially with youtube and other vids, books, etc. that breaks down various openings move-by-move to help those desiring to diversify their game to understand the philosophy behind each move.

Begin with a few (maybe unrated) games against a mentor or coach. You most likely will lose several times; but with each loss, you grow stronger as you learn to develop your own counters to your opponents moves.

~DW

If you play the Sicilian as black, at the point when you recognize the nuances and positions faced in that defense, you might want to essay the English opening because many of the moves and strategies are similar to the Sicilian. I would want to be comfortable playing the Sicilian before trying my hand at the English.

I have to agree with IM pfren, from experience. I played the English for years as a novice tournament player, believing that I would catch my opponents 'out of book'. As a result my growth as a chessplayer stagnated during this time, my tactics remained shoddy and my positional understanding never quite arrived. True, I did develop a certain mediocre proficiency in the opening, and won a few games...but that was my opponent's fault more than mine most of the time. Eventually to my credit I got sick of the English, and began playing 1.e4 of necessity...and my losses are more instructive to me in this way then they ever were with 1.c4 (which I currently hold the opinion that it gives the second player easier equality than 1.e4 does).

This stupid gambit is not so easy to punish, methinks.

I am currently playing a correspondence game with it (as Black), and I have a better position (maybe winning by force), but I am not very happy with my "book" choices- factly, I believe that with proper play, white had an equal game.

Anyway, I was quite happy with some of my opponent's choices... (he is an ICCF IM). I will post the game when it finishes, but suffice to say that this gambit is FAR from being completely unsound.

hmm.. this thread has gone from being about whether the OP should play the English to the discussion about when a player should start to learn opening theory

I agree the English should be put off for now, but with one caveat. 

At some point, someone is going to play the English against you. It wouldn't hurt to at least know some of the ideas behind the opening. Not that you should play it as White, just have an idea of what you want to do when you play against it as Black.

damn i have forgoten the line, didnt someone show an interesting refutation against the halloween gambit were black gave back the knight for a wining position?

Sure. Play the English. What could possibly go wrong!

if someone plays the english against you 1.Nf6 is an extremely flexible move that can easily go into the Kings indian defense if that is an opening you like it can also go into various other openings

I have a good feel for playing against the English. In fact I am delighted when it is played, probably because if I'm playing someone of a similar standard I'm likely more familiar than they are. 

I'm gonna pick up Sicilian against 1.e4 instead of e5, where I have previously enjoyed playing the Petroff. 

Pfren, I have an honest question for you: If I try to follow your advice and play 1. d4 and my opponent chooses to play the KID what do you expect the non-candidate master to do? resign immediately because the KID is not a classical opening? 

I think I get what you mean, but the way you phrased it is actually impossible to achieve in practice because one's opponent does not always respond classically.  

I suggest that you not play the English, as it is more of a positional opening and might not give you enough chances to practice tactics.  I say you should play 1e4.  Yes, the resulting positions can get crazy sometimes and you have to face the Sicilian quite a lot (find a good anti-Sicilian for that), but it allows you to practice tactics every game.

1d4 is good too but as some have pointed out here, it can lead to non-classical positions like KID, QID, Grunfeld, etc. and some of those can be ultra-sharp.  Against 1e4, about the only hypermodern defense that people play is Pirc/Modern and that is not used very often.  (Sicilian Dragon also looks a bit hypermodern, but you can avoid it with an anti-Sicilian).

Just came in here to say that the Halloween Gambit is utterly terrifying and a much better choice for a new (OK, newish) player than the English. :)

If you are good at playing The Sicilian as black then you may be good at the English. Heck, you have already gained a tempo! Have at it!

yeah but with the english you dont necessarily get sicilian structures.