Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Art of Setting Traps

  • GM DanielNaroditsky
  • | Mar 23, 2014
  • | 12500 views
  • | 41 comments

Most tournament players scoff at the notion of Coffeehouse Chess. Even so, some of the most famous brilliancies in chess history were produced under dubious, non-tournament circumstances: The Immortal Game (Anderssen-Kieseritzky) was played at the Simpson's Grand Divan Tavern during a break in the London International Tournament, the Polish Immortal (Miguel Najdorf's four-piece-sacrifice gem against the shadowy Glucksberg) took place during unknown circumstances in Warsaw, and Morphy's iconic victory against Duke Karl of Brunswick and Count Isouard, arguably the most famous chess game of all time, found its genesis in the Paris Opera House during a production of Norma.

Clearly, this trend is not coincidental: in tournament play, you cannot afford to lose fifteen games just to produce one memorable combination; as Australian IM and Correspondence GM C.J.S. Purdy once remarked, "you aren't playing in a tournament to paint pictures, but to win points." Furthermore, the victims of these storied sacrificial barrages helped make them possible through their unsuspecting (and sometimes outrageously cooperative) play. In the Anderssen-Kieseritzky game, for instance, Black had multiple opportunities to punish White for his overambitious, tactically unjustified plan. 

Paul Charles Morphy | Image Wikipedia

However, I believe that it is important to recognize that the old masters' (Anderssen, Morphy, Lasker, Zukertort, etc.) tactical cunning should not be written off as a thing of the past. To be sure, there is a fundamental difference between guile and cheapery. The famed romantics, for the most part, set tactical traps at the expense of their position. They got away with their highly dubious play - and won a myriad of brilliancy prizes in the process - due to their opponents' poor defensive ability. Nowadays, you will doubtless be punished for such unobjective play (remember that defensive ability has vastly improved in 150 years!), but there is no reason that tactical guile, per se, should be avoided. 

It is tempting to think that Grandmasters win most of their games through subtle positional maneuvering, but this is not the case. There is nothing inherently cheap or wrong about setting a trap if it does not harm your position, and Grandmasters score many points (especially against lower-rated players) due to the tactical unpreparedness or naiveté of their opponents.

Let us start with an introductory example. What do I mean by tactical slyness? How exactly do you set a trap without disturbing the flow of the game? 

After playing the opening and middlegame in a passive, distracted manner, I found myself struggling to stay afloat in this endgame. Black has an imposing pawn mass on the kingside, his pieces are beautifully coordinated, and White's own position is a mass of weaknesses and unsupported pieces. To this end, neither 31.Nxe7+ Rxe7 32.Rd1 a5 nor 31.Rd1 Bxh4+ 32.Kg2 Bd8 33.Nb4+ Kb7 34.c6+ Kc8 promise any relief for White. Thus, I arrived at my next move by process of elimination - the knight must be removed from d5, and this retreat must come with a gain of tempo (since 31.Nf4 Bf6 fails to impress). I was rather pleasantly surprised when I realized that this move also contains a vicious trap: 

As you can see, 31.Nb4+ was objectively the best move. It was played not with the specific intention of provoking 31...Kb5, but to drive away Black's threatening monarch and thereby keep White's flimsy position together. Thus, at a high level, a trap is frequently contained within an entirely natural move.

Of course, to set a trap, you must be tactically alert at all times. The a4+, Bd2 idea was not particularly difficult to see (even if the rook was left en prise), but not all tactical operations are so short and convincing. In the following game, English GM Matthew Sadler had to rely on his calculational ability to trick his unsuspecting opponent, and follow up with impeccable technique to actually bring in the full point.

But what does Black do now? 23...Nb4 is the obvious move, but Black is not able to untangle himself: 24.Qd4 Rb3 25.Nd7! Nc6 (25...Rd8 26.Nf6+) 26.Qc4 R8b7 27.Qxa6 and Black's position collapses. An interesting idea is 23...Qg5, counterattacking White's knight, but 24.exd5 Qxe5 25.d6 dooms Black to a rather colorless existence - it is not clear how to deal with the far-advanced passer. Still, Sadler did not panic. He noticed that the scope of the b2 rook would be greatly increased if White's kingside pawn structure were compromised. For instance, if White's f-pawn could be eliminated, moves such as ...Qf6 or ...Qg5 would be very difficult to deal with. Is there a way to turn this dream into reality? You bet! 

Once again, notice that 22...Nd5 was a strong move in and of itself; even if 23...Ne3 was impossible, he could have attained an immediate draw with 23...R8b4. 

One other type of common trap to which I would like to draw your attention is what I call the "inertia trap." The name is more or less self-explanatory: at times, your opponent is so engrossed in executing a plan or intensifying an attack that he fails to spot a potentially decisive tactical subtlety. When you are on the verge of breaking through, it is remarkably easy to underestimate the potency of your opponent's defensive chances. The following game is a gem of an illustration:

Hopefully, you now have a firm grasp on my main point: that the art of setting traps - also known as chess cleverness - should be built into your play. When all is said and done, a victory achieved through a devious trap and a victory achieved through a mesmerizing combination are represented by the same number: 1. I will leave you with a particularly memorable trap. This is how cunning strong players can get!



RELATED STUDY MATERIAL

Comments


  • 4 months ago

    solskytz

    The English is quite all right. I'm happy to see rich language used, and happy to learn new words when I don't know them. 

    There's much to learn from GM Serper too. Quite a number of elite writers here - and there's no point in comparing them. Just keep it up!

  • 4 months ago

    Yuxrier

    @queen-side

    Okay, I was referring specifically to this article. I haven't read very many of his articles, just this one, so I couldn't make any judgement in that regard myself. 

  • 4 months ago

    queen_side_saboteur

    @Yuxrier

    He certainly has not. Just look at his most recent article "The Greek Gift Sacrifice Lives On!"

    Of course I shouldn't be complaining. These are great stuff, and obviously the writer is spending a lot of time preparing them for us. I certainly learned a lot from his articles. But I got sidetracked so many times because I had to look up many strange words or expressions.

    People also say that I should be thanking him because he teaches me the words. But I am not here to learn English. I am here to learn chess.


    I just made a suggestion to the writer, so that his style becomes more inclusive, and in my opinion, more professional. Otherwise, his main audience would be just English speaking readers. If this is the intension, so be it.

    He is a young brilliant person with a great future ahead of him. I hope he reads these comments and understands the issue I am bringing up. It is easy to make mistakes like this because your first language is English, and you think all these words are either widely-used, or can be understood from the context. But I, as a foreigner, am telling you that these are certainly not easy words, and they hinder my reading. In my opinion, GM Serper's articles are good examples of professional writing.

    Thanks.

  • 4 months ago

    Yuxrier

    @queen_side_saboteur


    From what I have seen in the comments (though I have not read his past articles), Daniel's earlier articles have had larger words in them and he has toned his vocabulary down a bit since them. 

  • 4 months ago

    queen_side_saboteur

    @jul059

    I'd say you have an advantage then. You know a Latin language, which I believe shares a lot of word with English. Smile

    I went back and looked at previous comments on Daniel's earlier articles. I actually saw many people complaining about his writing style. So I'm just happy that I am not alone.

    As Jimmy-the-hand mentioned the "consensus" is that these "big" words are welcome. So let it be. And you English speakers, who came up with the "consensus", enjoy the art of literature (and thesaurus) at its best! Wink

  • 4 months ago

    jul059

    @queen_side_saboteur : We're on the same boat : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec

  • 5 months ago

    supersupersuperjay

    GRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT stuff here!!!

  • 5 months ago

    StevieBlues

    Top notch! thanks

  • 5 months ago

    metaxzen

    "Where others see a trap, I see free cheese and a challenge" - I don't remember, some british rapper and I'm sure I'm getting the quote slightly wrong 

  • 5 months ago

    lilAj

    Great ending puzzle!

  • 5 months ago

    titust

    Traps!

  • 5 months ago

    rigamagician1959

    Am new to chess.com but I must say the entire article was everything the author intended. It was informative, entertaining, gripping and, I thought, a very valuable and FREE piece of chess journalism. Many thanks.

  • 5 months ago

    danno1800

    a wonderful atricle! thanks, Daneil

  • 5 months ago

    Bryan_Urizar

    I'm surprised there is no mention of Carlsen in this article considering that he's always talking about setting traps.

  • 5 months ago

    nomadicgypsyshamans

    Great puzzle to conclude!  Yes, ok, satisfactory piece on analytical depth, yes, ok, othervise zis iz a colorless typefest, nondescriptive, brilliant in a paucity of uniqueness, derth of humility, telling > showing, witless, lacking examples.  "Satisfactory" is too complimentary; perhaps, "meh," since it reads as a cut n paste, mail-in designed by Great Value.  Admins: encourage your audience.  Yawn, love, good day, booklearners.  Eric Emenheiser.

  • 5 months ago

    A_Stupid_Loser

    nice article. thanks

  • 5 months ago

    LaskerFan

    MY type of articles! I love traps! Thanks a million!

  • 5 months ago

    solskytz

    Daniel never had a problem with "high words". His writing is rich, idiomatic, fluent and expressive. 

    Keep them coming! is all I say

  • 5 months ago

    Kakamou12

    At first I thought black had still some kind of chance with a piece down in the last puzzle, but....no

  • 5 months ago

    Pacific_Victory

    I dunno what everyone is complaining about. After reading this article I was pleasantly surprised to see that Daniel has tuned down the 'ten dollar word' use and what we are left with here is an excellently written piece which is neither too academic nor so lifeless as to be boring. Well done Daniel! 

Back to Top

Post your reply: