Why don't more people play the English?

Rating has nothing to do with this.. just because you are below 2000 doesn't make your opinion worthless.

I think difficulty is all relative. I can say the same thing with Ruy Lopez and Dragon. But I agree with there are numerous transpositions and that's why I like it. You can confuse your opponent with these transpositions (Of course it's double edge).

Most amateurs play e4 and d4 and often are scratching their heads when they face a c4 player. I think that's one of the pros of c4. Kinda funny to see them squirm because they are put into an unfamiliar territory.

Karpov and Kasparov both played e4 and then later played more d4. Bobby Fischer played e4 because he considered it the best and most confrontational in comparison to other moves.

Obviously they knew what the English was but did not consider it best for the kind of play and positions they wanted.

c4 isn't immediately confrontational, it's more positional. e4 fits the style of more confrontational players as it develops the king's bishop earlier. This facilitates quicker castling in preparation for opening the centre.

Ruy Lopez

• Move 3, white has developed 2 minor pieces.
• Move 4, white castles.
• Move 5-6, white expands in the centre, preparing to break open the position.

English

• Move 4, white has developed 2 minor pieces.
• Move 5, white develops a 3rd minor piece to now allow kingside castling (Nc3 was necessary to prevent e5-e4).
• Move 6, white castles.
• Expanding and breaking out in the centre will be more difficult for white as d4 is sufficiently contested by black.

To be fair, you are being intentionally pejorative. It honestly feels like disdain towards e4 d4 players.

The English often transposes to 1.d4 openings (though it does not always need to), it can also transpose to reverse openings, where there is the question if the extra tempo is good (maybe) or not (maybe). Of course it also has some own-label tabiyas.

Therefore to play the English "properly", not in a one-setup fits all fashion, one needs a rather broad understanding of several tabiyas, their subtleties and which one to transpose to. In short, it requires a lot of existing "play experience" to play it properly.

In that respect, it's not as straightforward as 1.e4 or 1.d4 and therefore not employed as often at lower levels.

If someone masters it, it's a formidable weapon. Building a tailored 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 repertoire is a non-trivial task though but if someone wants to create problems for their opponents straight from the opening, it may be worth it.

Everyone scratches their heads in unfamiliar territory, even GMs and super GMs, it's just that they have very little territory that's unfamiliar. Of course their head-scratching is more productive than ours but they also lose games when faced with new positions.

How long did it take you to build a tailored English repertoire? A friend who did it ( FM ), devoted about two years in building it and playing it online, before switching to it OTB.

It did pay dividends though as he started putting pressure and creating room for errors straight from the opening, which was no longer happening at his level by employing sharp theoretical lines which his opponents were well prepared for. It's harder to learn to play a whole set of not too-familiar tabiyas in the timeframe of preparing for a game..

Fair enough with your assessment. But to be fair I wasn't. It's probably a bad phrase on my part but that wasn't my intention. I apologize. I should have probably used a diff analogy with no negative connotations

"Everyone scratches their heads in unfamiliar territory, " true. But I find that most amateurs are often surprised against non e4 and d4 openings.

I know plenty of people who are fond of these English type setups with c4-Nc3-g3-Bg2 and some combination of e3-Nge2 or d3-Nf3. It depends on style though.

e4 players are those who presumably enjoy playing lines like Ruy Lopez, Italian, Sicilian, French, etc.

d4 players are those who presumably enjoy playing lines like Queen's Gambit, King's Indian, Nimzo/Queen's Indian, etc.

I've found this to be true at a certain point of my amateur chess games. I feel I am stronger (also plays riskier) when playing e4 but smarter (but also too relax in a negative sense) when playing d4.

I haven't opened 1.e4 for a long time but 1.d4 feels more like playing for two results instead of three. Play is also more thematic and accumulated knowledge on pawn structures, endgames etc feels like it matters more. 1.e4 felt more initiative driven and like putting more immediate pressure on Black to play accurately but at the same time one slip by White, failing to honor the initiative, in some positions could also cause a loss.

Ultimately I wanted more control over the position with White and preferred the tiniest of positional advantages instead of an initiative whose value was not always apparent in unclear complicated positions.

At first I changed my 1.e4 repertoire from playing the sharpest line vs everything towards a mix of sharp and positional lines but ultimately my coach told me instead of creating my own version of a Michael Adams 1.e4 repertoire, it will be simpler to just switch to 1.d4, and so I did.

The above are rather general and one could of course find 1.e4 lines and 1.d4 lines where the opposites conclusions are true.

I really love d4 as an opening, and as much as I love the standard lines (Mainly the Four Pawns Attack variation of the King's Indian), I mainly play the Blackmar Diemer for the purposes of rapid piece development, and as sort of a surprise tool. I play c4 pretty often as well (Even though it doesn't have very many fun gambit lines), and yes, it usually transposes into some sort of d4 opening, but c4 (To me, at least) seems like a more positional, highly tactics focused opening, where the key ideas are mainly to gain high levels of control over the central light squares, using pieces and pawns in combination to establish a strong foundation in the middle of the board and gain a telling space advantage over the Black pieces, and restricting Black's possibilities for counterplay. I also think that it does have some similarities to 1. d4, with many of the similarities being that white can build a solid center, keep the position closed, maintain an excellent pawn structure, and develop their pieces relatively easily. As for my comments on the stockfish analysis, I was just seeking to prove a point on the usefulness of the English, and to show that it's highly effective at all levels of play.

Middle game is often the same

Because we have often the same structure in the middle game

@NumerousBadgers

I would like to try out d4 a bit later but for now I'm content with e4. It has typically the style and openings that I enjoy most and would like to gain experience in, such as Ruy Lopez, Open Sicilian and French.

An opening doesn't have to be a dubious gambit to be fun. If I was going to develop a d4 repertoire, I would like to find some sharp lines which more fit my preference. Bayonet Attack King's Indian, Botvinnik Semi-Slav and things like that.

I wasn't sure what I would go for against the Grünfeld or Nimzo. Probably the Russian or Exchange Grünfeld. I know some of these Classical Nimzo lines can be sharp but depends on what black plays.

I don’t mind playing the English at all, if I am at a bar or coffee shop and just want to instinctively thrown down (being a Sicilian player), I go with the English.

Here I, I transposed to the Catalan:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/75182566285

Scandinavian? Whatever, Sicilian Dragon Game is a dream as white:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/24620535969

https://www.chess.com/game/live/75180730199

Play whatever your coach suggested, the only thing I can say that may be of value is that the effort to completely change a repertoire is really "a lot"(TM), so whatever you play now, learn it well and stick with it for some years.

For the strategy with the Black pieces I don't know, it's the only point where I followed half of my coach's advice. Versus 1.e4 he suggested I switch to 1. ..e5 instead of my Sicilian repertoire, I did drop the Sicilian but ultimately after playing a bit of 1. ..e5 I went for a different option altogether. I think I disagreed with him on the objectives of an opening strategy with Black as a whole, but that's a different discussion and anyhow he was way more experienced than I'll ever be, so maybe 1. ..e5 was the better choice.

I do absolutely agree with you that an opening doesn't need to be a dubious gambit to be fun, but I still love to see if I can win with them.

Yeah, I can understand. Sometimes you just have your thing. I prefer openings which are sound and also sharp, aggressive and fun. Even if sometimes I don't play well enough to show that one opening is more sound than another, I prefer that style because I feel that I can achieve a greater understanding of the game that way and (eventually) play beautiful chess.

Is there anything you like playing against the Nimzo or Queen's Indian?