In a sense, yes.
But that holds true for ALL openings: against opponents below a specific strength, one can play as Black without a really serious opening study (just a few ideas).
And, it certainly saves time to study more important things (tactics, ebgames etc etc)

But that is true for 1.e4, 1.d4 and 1.c4/Nf3 , equally for them

One day, you get to a point where you need a decent repertoire, because a good knowledge of your opening DOES matter at a certain level.

When you reach that level, THEN you realize that you cannot jusrt get away with the reasoning: "I am prepared vs e4 and d4, but vs 1.c4 I have holes, but I'll just try as hard as I can to revert to a 1.d4 scheme"

Indeed, it does work with a subset of 1.d4 openings (namely, the QGD, and Tarrasch family- provided one also knows decently the Catalan scheme)

But not with for instance the Dutch or the Queen'sIndian/Hedgehog.
E.g. in the Dutch, a white pawn of d3 rather than d4 alters radically the structure, making easier to play e4 for white (which is harder in the dutch) and creating different weaknesses in white's camp.
I am not saying that Black is worse off than in the dutch: I am just saying that the structure of the play changes

At 2000+ level, it is exactly the "hope" to revert to a "similar" scheme that often brings black in trouble.

Of course, this does not apply in a blitz/semiblitz game: e.g. if someone tells me "I play this way without many troubles in online blitz/semiblitz games", I'll certainly believe him but such games are hardly reliable


Sure, as I say, the 1.e4 1d4 and 1c4/Nf3 system should be treated with the same dignity and as independent openings (of course with transpositional chances): so it's better to have a real repertoire against all three, at least when we get to a point where a repertoire matters.

The important point is that non-experienced players should be warned that the illusion to "improvise with success vs the English" is comparable to the wish of "improvising with success" vs 1.e4 or 1.d4.
I know that some people embrace fully such a phylosophy vs whatever white opening and this is bold and enterprising and ncertainly improves one's chess. However, a man should be warned

But again, I fully agree if we state that for the vast majority of players, opening study is the last priority

I used to use the KID against everything non-e4. However, since the English is my main white opening, I'm pretty familiar with all the replies to it. I now usually go into one of the Symmetrical English's as black. As an English player against the Dutch, I go for a Botvinnik set-up with pawns on c4-d3-e4 and feel comfortable that I'm in more familiar territory than the normal Dutch player. Against everything else, I go either for a Caro-Kann/Slav formation or a KID formation.

I understand the respect for (what shall we call them?) uncommon openings.

I never 'hope' to transpose into a d4-line. In fact, many times, I prefer if white doesn't, because most of the time the line with d4 is stronger. Let's face it, d4 is objectively often a great help in the opening stages.

What I meant by specific preparation is that:
- I have more thorough preparation for the system with d4.
- I will be familiar to a degree in the position that arises in unique lines. I'm sort of like Fischer in that way, I can play with just about anything as long as it stays mostly clear, defined, controllable.

Perseus,
I am sure you have everything in control for your own repertoire

However, my own experience is that FAR too many opponents (even good ones) know their openings quite bad when it comes to playing against the English/Reti.

There does exist for many players some conscoius or unconscious train of thoughts according to which Black could and should have a reliable and well-defined pet line vs 1.e4 and 1.d4 but not necessarily vs the english/reti

When such kind of players meet some decent 1.c4 players, a lot of the times their % as black is much worse than vs king's or queen's pawn openings against same strength opposition

My points were not directed at YOU: as I stated above, I think you know what you are doing.

Rather than for you, it's a warning for improving players: for these players, certainly opening theory is not first priority until they grasp tactics and endgames;
but WHEN the knowledge of opening strategy (usually the study of typical middlegames, not necessarily memorizing variations) becomes important - and sooner or later it does - THEN they should have a reliable defense vs the English/Reti too, covering all the possible transpositions.

Oh I know exactly what you mean (and meant). I help a friend of mine teach at a few schools in the area. We taught them to use the English opening, modeled after Botvinnik and the Alekhine defense.

Now, there was one school we had a match with, I'd seen their team play before. They had some strong players there, in fact I thought we didn't have much chance.
All our games with black were in the Alekhine, all our games with white were in the English. We drew on one board and won on the other 6. The opponents didn't know how to play against them, whereas our guys knew their themes and strategies..

So clearly, you want to find something reliable and something that avoids massive chunks of theory. Looking for exact variations in defenses strikes me as the wrong way to go about this. Think bigger.

Think, "Repetioir." You need something that avoids small, but not irrelevant, sidelines. I'll offer you some advice on the black side. 1...e6. Such a suggestion is, admittedly, not for everyone's taste.

Typically 1...e6 vers 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4 requires knowledge of the French Defense and some black defense (I play the classical dutch for instance, but a queen's gambit declined or nimzo/queen's indian hybrid is possible too).

Thinking bigger, in this case, might help you grapple on to your openings troubles.

--Ira13ping

1. c4 c5

1.... Nf6
1.... g6
1... e5
1.... b6

are all quite playable. I like to go for symmetry and then ask White to try to prove any advantage.

Crash