The English

ThrillerFan
alessioborgese wrote:

Anyone know a good book that Explain English opening For white? 

 

Depends on how much work you want to put into it.  Both of these are repertoires, and so you may not like all lines given.

 

Single Volume:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Opening-Repertoire-English-Everyman-Chess/dp/1781943745

 

Multi-Volume Repertoire


The 3 Marin books by Quality Chess.

ThrillerFan
helenachristinamaria wrote:

One of the reasons why I play 1.c4 is that I don't like to play Nb1-c3 with the pawn on c2. Further it seems to me that  1.c4 Nf6; 2.a3  prevents a Nimzo-Indian setup by Black (if that is what you want there is of course also the Petrosian System 1.c4 Nf6:2.d4 e6; 3.a3). 

 

Black also prevents the Nimzo-Indian other ways:

 

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 (Mikenas-Flohr, now 3...Bb4 is terrible.  Black must play 3...d5 or 3...c5 or else get rolled over.

 

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4 is simply known as the Anti-Nimzo Indian.  Most captures will be taken with the d-pawn instead of the b-pawn.

 

1.c4 Nf6 2.a3 is a complete joke!  For example, 2...g6 and your second move is a complete waste of time.  You are stopping the Bishop from going where it isn't going to begin with.  It's headed for g7.  Even if you normally play 2...e6 against the English, the fact that White played the ridiculous move 2.a3 validates switching gears and playing 2...g6.

 

Sure, many 1200 players pigeon hole themselves to one setup.  Anybody that has a clue about chess ought to know that many opening moves call for a switch of gears!  Flexibility is key in chess!  2.a3 is not at all flexible!

poucin

Kramnik didnt play 2.a3 but later just achieved a classical sicilian reversed.

U can notice MVL played Bb4 just to go back on f8...

Did MVL used the hole on b3, described by ThrillerFan? I d'ont see it.

Ok it is blitz but anyway, I guess these guys know what they are doing, is'nt it Thriller?

 

1.c4 Nf6 2.q3 is a joke... So rigid dude...

Once again, 1.Nf3 c5 and black would be happy to have a6 for free, so why should it be a joke?

White just aims for a playable position, maybe not enough for advantage (nobody knows), but nowadays, there is no real advantage for white in any variations if black know what he/she is doing.

melvinbluestone

   Check out Reinderman's way of handling Bb4:

 

swantao

good post

 

https://www.swantao.com

helenachristinamaria

ThrillerFan: I never advocated 2.a3 after 1.c4 Nf6.

Logstoned

Stockfish 9 gives both 2...Nc6 and 2...d5 as 0.00 2...c6 deserves an honorable mention (+0.06) as it turns the game in some kind of reversed alapin which is something white probably has no knowledge about when playing 1.c4. 

 

I can't say 2.a3 is move white should play for a win. But it could be of some value as a surprise weapon.

omsaibalkawade

what is the best reply to 1.d4

 

omsaibalkawade

did any one want chess base 14 free

ThrillerFan
poucin wrote:

Kramnik didnt play 2.a3 but later just achieved a classical sicilian reversed.

U can notice MVL played Bb4 just to go back on f8...

Did MVL used the hole on b3, described by ThrillerFan? I d'ont see it.

Ok it is blitz but anyway, I guess these guys know what they are doing, is'nt it Thriller?

 

1.c4 Nf6 2.q3 is a joke... So rigid dude...

Once again, 1.Nf3 c5 and black would be happy to have a6 for free, so why should it be a joke?

White just aims for a playable position, maybe not enough for advantage (nobody knows), but nowadays, there is no real advantage for white in any variations if black know what he/she is doing.

The game you post is of complete irrelevance to my argument that 2.a3 is a complete waste of time.  Just because 2.a3 is a waste of time does not mean a3 is always a waste of time or that b3 will never be a weakness, but moves like a3, h3, a6, or h6 played too early when it is not needed will do nothing but weaken squares.  For example, play ...h6 too early and you weaken f5 pretty much permanently.  a3 weakens c4, a6 weakens c5, h3 weakens f4 from the get go.  Tack on c4 to a3 and now b3 is weak too.

You seem to want to talk down to people like 2100 players do not understand chess.  The difference between a 1500 player and a 2100 is hard work, effort, and skills.  The difference between a 2100 and 2700 player is a job, a spouse, kids, and a life!

helenachristinamaria

I am usually between 1700 and 1800, so I will leave the discussion to better players like poucin and ThrillerFan. That I find very interesting and instructive. In the meantime I'll go on playing 1.c4 e5/e6; 2.a3, if it were only for it's suprise-value that logstoned mentioned. Being 70 years old I've given all hope of ever reaching the 2000-level or to remember numerous variations. Hopefully the discussion will go on, because so far there is no unanimaty. By the way, somwhere I read that Vastimil Hort has said that the natural course of a chessplayer's career goes from 1.e4 via 1.d4 to 1.c4. Any comments on that?