Black repertoire for players who love the English Opening

Hi guys,

when I startet playing chess I picked 3 openings (Queens Gambit as white, Caro Kann and QGD as black) and pretty much stopped studying the openings to focus on endgames and middlegames.
Some months ago I started analysing the games of Ulf Andersson and fell in love with the English Opening. I am wondering if there are black openings who are similar.

My current repertoire looks like this:
White: English
Black: Caro Kann (vs. 1.e4) and Nimzo/QID (vs. 1d4)

Some info on what I like in the English and in general:

1. My prefered way to win is getting a small advantage and converting into a winning endgame. I love endgames.
2. I really like playing against structural weaknesses.
3. I do enjoy queenless middlegames.
4. I like quiet games with time to maneuver and frequently employ a double fiancetto as white.

The reality is that you cannot force such openings as black, but you can pick openings that may suit your style.

I really think that the Nimzo-Indian/Queens-Indian may suit your style very well. They will not get you queenless positions too often right out of the opening, but the nature of the Nc3 in the Nimzo, and it often getting exchanged resulting in doubled pawns for white, you will get a lot of strategically complex positions that have structural weaknesses to work against (usually in exchange for the bishop pair), and there is often a lot of maneuvering. In the Queens-Indian, you get the fianchettoed bishop you like, and nice control over e4, which allows you to try and chip away as the white center. I have also gotten a number of nice kingside attacks too against the white Kg1.

This has been my bread and butter opening pair as black against 1.d4 for decades, and I like the type of positions that you like. The theory is old now, but if you can get a hold of the book "Understanding the Queens Indian Defense" on eBay, it does a great job of teaching the underlying ideas. You can also study Karpov's games, as this was his main weapon as black during his peak years.

In the Nimzo take this famous game in the Huebner variation of the Nimzo. Of course, there are many variations, and you would have to learn more than just the Huebner.

Glad to see someone with an identical repertoire to me I play 1.c4 exclusively as White. The Nimzo- and Bogo-Indian are part of my weaponry against 1.d4.

Against 1.e4 my preferred response is the so-called "Modern Philidor Defence", reached by the following move order:

The queenless endgame is theoretically fine for Black. He has given up the right to castle, but it's not a big deal because the king is well-sheltered by the e- or c-pawn. In the long run Black will play on the queenside with ...c6 and ...b5, harassing the misplaced White knight on c3. I have some pleasant memories with it, including this win yesterday:

Do you transpose to the Kings Indian or play an inferior line of the philidor after 3.f3?

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 (even recommended in "The Modern Samisch" which came out last year) and now 3....e5 4.d5 Be7 (4...g6 is likely to transpose to a line of the Samisch) is like an inferior old Indian as White has more flexibility without having committed yet to c4 (though likely will be played eventually).  Point is, the "misplaced" knight on c3 is no longer on c3, and can wait on b1 until the c-pawn is pushed or even go to d2 or a3, though more likely is c3 AFTER c4 is pushed!

I'm familiar with the Benoni, so I'll go for 3....c5 and transpose to the f3 Benoni. It's not the most challenging system against the Benoni AFAIK.

White may avoid Benoni positions altogether with 4.c3, but his c3-d4-e4-f3 setup looks rather awkward. More so if you consider that white has to develop his knights to d2 and e2.

I shall confess that I've never met 3.f3 in OTB games, probably because players who start with 1.e4 tend to avoid transpositions to QP openings. I do share your sentiment on the Old Indian type of positions; They're quite uncomfortable for the second player.

The main thing to watch out for in those Benoni lines is not c3, but d5 with no c4 where the Knights go b1-d2-c4 and g1-e2-c3 (similar to the more traditional 1.d4 c5 with b1-c3 and g1-f3-d2-c4).  This could make d6 a problem.

Hey,

I was an e4 player that switched to 1.c4. The reason I avoid 1.nf3 and d4 is because I LOVE 1.c4 e5 positions; you are generally playing a dragon (regular or accelerated) with an extra move. In fact, many English positions are just that—reversed Sicilian positions with an extra move, except when they transpose to Catalans. I found that I was very comfortable on both sides of the board (1.c4 or 2.c5

I keep hitting send :[] . 1.c4 as white or 1.e4 c5 as black*. If you would like to discuss this further, send me a msg and I can recommend some study material and books. Also, don't be put off by my rating, my FIDE is much higher. I let my students use this acct.

It's true that the "Knight Tour Variation" (Nf3-d2-c4) has some poison. I don't think the same can't be said about Ne2-c3 and Nd2-c4, though. White has already wasted a tempo on the pawn move 3.f3. Wasting more tempi on knight dances can't be good:

Thanks everyone for your input

@Hanranyou: I picked up the book and am going to read after i finish my current reading list (game collections of Ulf Andersson, Karpov and Petrosian). Will check out the Huebner Variation!

@TrainerMeow: I looked at a book called "play d6 against everything" briefly and really like the queenless middlegame it and you show here. I didn't warm up with the positions that arise after White refuses to accept the pawn and therefore queentrade however.
How often do you get queenless middlegames?
What do you like about the position after your opponent refuses to trade queens?

@NarcoTerror: What books on the English do you like? I play the 2. g3-English, which is advocated in Tony Kostens' book "The Dynamic English". Have you read "The English: Move by Move" by Giddins?

My impression is that everyone below 2000 (Chess.com rating) goes for 4.dxe5 and trades queens. At a higher level, though, White tends to avoid the endgame.

The main line with 4.Nf3 and 5.Bc4 is of a strategic nature. There are virtually no forced lines that has to be memorized; concepts and ideas prevail instead. A godsend for players like me who hate memorizing... It's similar to the Queen's Indian, in the sense that Black gives up some central space in return for a very solid structure. Quite often White overextends and gets punished when attempting to cash in on his space advantage.

My main reference is The Modern Philidor Defence by IM Vladimir Barsky.

As Black, I'd definitely go for the Nimzo-Indian (it's probably the best defence against 1.d4), including the Hübner Variation. However, you need to be prepared for the 5.Nge2 instead of 5.Bd3. To stay consistent with the Hübner, I would recommend the Romanishin-Psakhis Variation: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Ne2 (5.Nf3 Bxc3+ leads to the Hübner) 5...b6. In my experience most players tend to react in a similar fashion to the Hübner, but play can get very sharp, and in some lines you have to be prepared to sacrifice your queen for a rook and knight (check out the game Bernardo Wexler-Boris Spassky, Mar del Plata 1960). Eddie Dearing's written a book for Everyman in which recommends this variation, but from a slightly different move order: 4...b6, because he recommends playing 5...d5 (instead of the Hübner) against 5.Nf3, reaching a sort of QGD Tartakower variation in the Nimzo-Indian. Against 4.Qc2 I would recommend the Milner-Barry variation 4...Nc6, which actually bears a close resemblance to the Hübner and the 4...Qe7 Bogo-Indian (despite the knight having gone to c6 as early as move 4), and is less well-known and less theoretical than the more common c5+d5 replies by Black. On the whole, for your specific purposes, it's definitely worth seeking out those Nimzo setups where Black aims for a setup with pawns on c5 and/or e5 plus d6 or b6, and avoid those where Black plays d5.

I would also recommend the Bogo-Indian, 4...Qe7, against both 3.Nf3 and 3.g3 (limits the amount of theory you need to study compared to the Queen's Indian), although it has to be said that this has the drawback of being relatively easy to play also for White, which means that you can get games where a stronger player can pressure you for ages without much risk, whereas a weaker player is unlikely to go wrong easily. This is the reason I gave up the Bogo-Indian, having played it for 20 odd years.

Against 1.e4, in order to stay in line with your 1.d4 repertoire, I would recommend the Hedgehog Sicilian or perhaps the Modern, although not so easy to play, but they do have features in common with the English and the Réti as White, and in the case of the Hedgehog, with the Nimzo-Indian. Nothing intrinsically wrong with the Philidor, but you'll need something against the King's Gambit, and the Vienna.

All this talk of "queenless middlegames" drives me nuts.  This expression, originally used to described the Berlin endgame, is a misnomer.  I get the idea, that all of the other pieces on the board makes mating attacks possible, but mating attacks are possible with pawns and a minor piece.  Also, the depth and availability of combinations and tactics is drastically reduced without queens, which makes castling unnecessary.  When all minor pieces have been touched and both rooks are either in communication or somehow active, you are in the middlegame. When queen's come off, it is a sign that you are in an endgame.  

That's an unnecessarily narrow understanding. Middlegames are much more than tactics and combinations. It's also about a constant fight for space, an ever-changing pawn structure, the dynamics of long-term weaknesses and the difficult question of whether to trade and enter the endgame. When queens goes off board at an early stage, these strategical aspects remains relevant, despite the reduction in tactical possibilities. In other words, "queenless middlegames" are typically of a positional nature rather than tactical.

Endgames, on the other hand, are characterized by concrete play. A good many endgames are theoretically winning (KBN vs K) or drawish (KR vs KB in most scenarios). Our evaluation of other endgames depends on whether these theoretical endgames can be reached. The following "queenless middlegame" position is obviouly not the case:

@NarcoTerror: I looked at the Sicilian, following your comment stating that many English games lead to a Reversed Sicilian position. Which is my experience as well. People tend to play 1. ... e5 much more than the Symmetrical against me.

I was always put of by the reputation of the sicilian of being a theory beast. However, after scrolling through various opening books and a couple of websites I found the Hyperaccelerated Dragon.

Which is essentially what i play most often with white just one tempo down and with colours reversed. I love it.

One could argue that this would be more theory to study than the Caro Kann but since I play kinda the same position as white all the time I feel like catching two birds with one stone.

I am aware that I need responses to the Alapin, Grand Pri and Closed Sicilian as well.

Do you have experience with the HAD? What is your impression and can you recommend material on it?

#15:  "Endgames, on the other hand, are characterized by concrete play."

That's a helpful observation and insight for me.  Thanks!

GM Ulf Andersson (and Capablanca, of course) would disagree with reference to endgames. He always says, you have to think in images, the positions/formations you're looking to achieve.