Is the English a Classical Opening?

Hello all. I have been using the English opening lately (1.c4 2.Nc3) and I enjoy its status as somthing of an oddball compared to e4 and d4. I seem to get very playable games out of it more often than not, just by following normal development principles without much, if any, raw memorization.

I have read that the best long-term improvement will come from playing the classical opening motifs first, basing opening development on principles, and moving on to more modern openings and memorization only when there is no more room for improvement with the old standards.

My questions are thus: IS the Engish a "classical" opening, per se? Does it fall into the same category as 1.e4 and 1.d4 for all intents and purposes? Or would I do better to return to the old mainstays for the time being and save 1.c4 for later when my playing strength is much higher?

I think you would be ok. Your online rating is 1300 not bad.

No - There are 3 schools of chess.  The Classical, Modern, and Hypermodern, the first and third being far more popular than the second.

The Classical school of chess sees the pawns dominating the center with central development.

The Hypermodern school of chess involves development on the flank, typically at least 1 Bishop fianchettoed, and neither central pawn is typically moved past e3 or d3 (e6/d6 for Black).  You allow your opponent to build a large center, and you chip away at it, rather than occupying the center with pawns.

 

Classical Openings would be ones like the Queen's Gambit, Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Defense, French Defense, Caro-Kann Defense, etc.

 

Hypermodern Openings include the King's Indian Defense, Nimzo-Indian, Pirc/Modern Defense, Reti, and yes, THE ENGLISH OPENING!

 

Hope this helps.

Well at first I thought the English was Hyper Modern.

However, After using full brain power for a solid 30 mins.

I now believe the English Opening can be both Hyper Modern and Classical.

I now believe the Siclian Defence can be both Hyper Modern and Classical as well.

LetTheW00kieeWin wrote: Hello all. I have been using the English opening lately (1.c4 2.Nc3) and I enjoy its status as somthing of an oddball compared to e4 and d4. I seem to get very playable games out of it more often than not, just by following normal development principles without much, if any, raw memorization.I have read that the best long-term improvement will come from playing the classical opening motifs first, basing opening development on principles, and moving on to more modern openings and memorization only when there is no more room for improvement with the old standards.My questions are thus: IS the Engish a "classical" opening, per se? Does it fall into the same category as 1.e4 and 1.d4 for all intents and purposes? Or would I do better to return to the old mainstays for the time being and save 1.c4 for later when my playing strength is much higher?

LetTheW00kieeWin wrote: Hello all. I have been using the English opening lately (1.c4 2.Nc3) and I enjoy its status as somthing of an oddball compared to e4 and d4. I seem to get very playable games out of it more often than not, just by following normal development principles without much, if any, raw memorization.I have read that the best long-term improvement will come from playing the classical opening motifs first, basing opening development on principles, and moving on to more modern openings and memorization only when there is no more room for improvement with the old standards.My questions are thus: IS the Engish a "classical" opening, per se? Does it fall into the same category as 1.e4 and 1.d4 for all intents and purposes? Or would I do better to return to the old mainstays for the time being and save 1.c4 for later when my playing strength is much higher?

English is classical, or hypermodern depending on how you play it

 It's not just a blitz opening.

There are many responses to 1c4. After the first move IMO, the game can take on many different contours. I like 1c4 because I believe it as strong as any other first move and black has less preparation against it usually.

Yes, amusing. I sometimes think I have to qualify everything I say on the forums in case someone nitpicks and takes something out of context or misunderstands, or thinks I'm generalising when I'm being specfic, or being specific about a generalisation or thinks I'm being serious when I should not be, or over qualifying things or not etc etc

english not so good to fight for advantage

The 'danger' of the English is twofold: (1) It doesn't make a path for either of your bishops, (2) some of the resulting positions can be extremely strategic and therefore require a certain level of planning and intuition (because they don't suggest a particular idea as loudly as, say, a KID which screams "BREAK THE CENTER AND CHARRRGE!"). The Symmetrical English makes me feel like I'm living in a padded room - which is why I don't really play the English anymore. But if you're cognizant of the developmental problem and OK with playing some positions that are hard to crack, you'll be just fine.

 

Is it 'classical'? No, not in the strictest sense, but it's quite good.

.....you know.....that thing they do with e5 - N(somewhere) - f5, and running up the board with everything?.......