Creating traps vs positional play

Often in our games, we have the chance of setting up an trap to our (human) opponent but that could leave us to a worse position if the trap is declined or to a winning position if it works. So, my fellow chess.com mates, what do you think about this topic?

a) never set a trap if that possibly leads you to a worse position;

b) decide that by analisys and calculation, game by game;

c) create as many traps as you can;

d) other...

I believe that I don't have a definitive answer for this topic... I enjoy to set up traps but I avoid the simple ones, because probably wont work, and could leave me to a really bad position (like the scholar's mate, for instance).

Any comments?
Cheers.

There's a really common misconception at work here:

Positional play is tactical when the position requires the position to be tactical. The greatest positional players such as Petrosian, Karpov and Kramnik were all fully capable of explosive tactics when the position required it. 

Trappy play, making an inferior move just for the sake of setting a trap, is bad play. If the trap does not worsen the position with best play, use it. If there is a refutation that you can work out, don't play it. 

Don't play moves that you know are objectively bad. 

Always assume your opponent will find the best response.  Hoping he will make the inferior one that falls for a trap you've set is inferior play in its own right.

One the aspects of chess that attracted me to the game is the following:

There is no lying in chess. Unlike in life, in chess there is no concealing information, withholding important facts, etc. Everything is right there in the position on the chess board. I take great delight in finding the absolute truth in a position.

Not really a trap then, is it?  Just a good dual purpose move.

chessmicky wrote:

"I take great delight in finding the absolute truth in a position."

I think you mean: I take great delight is trying to find the absolute truth is a position. 

__________________

You are right. That is where the beef in the fun is. My brain goes into a 'zen'-like state.

I forgot to say when probably I create as many traps as I can: when I am in a lost position and I don't have nothing to lose. So, if the trap doesn't work, that's fine (the game was doomed already) but if it works, it could leave me to a draw or winning position. Do you agree?

If you're already lost, then setting a trap is a reasonable way to go. That type of trap has a specific name, "swindle". There have been some very strong GMs who were able to swindle their way out of lost positions quite often. Emanuel Lasker (another great positional player) and Frank Marshall (known primarily as a tactician) were both known as great swindlers. 

Today, Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura are probably known as the best swindlers. But Carlsen also rarely gets into lost positions in the first place.

The best swindles are often moves that look like a tactic that went slightly wrong, but that lead to positions that are easily misjudged. In other words, the best swindlers are often the best positional players!

N3l50n wrote:

I forgot to say when probably I create as many traps as I can: when I am in a lost position and I don't have nothing to lose. So, if the trap doesn't work, that's fine (the game was doomed already) but if it works, it could leave me to a draw or winning position. Do you agree?

___________________

When I am in a winning or won position I have one priority when looking for my next move. It is well known priority to strong players. That priority is called KILL COUNTERPLAY.

Depends upon how difficult it is to find the refutation.

I play the Danish gambit and the smith morra all the time because people at my level (And below master level really) don't know how to play against it.

I'd gladly make a sub-par move if the correct response is difficult to find and there are many different ways of screwing it up.

Ok, traps are an excellent way to learn tactics. Here are two examples of traps, one good one bad. 

First the bad trap:

I use to play more games where I relied on traps. Ever since I started to study chess I tried to play more for position since it is more reliable. If I have nothing to lose then I will set up a trap.  

Jrmld wrote:

I use to play more games where I relied on traps. Ever since I started to study chess I tried to play more for position since it is more reliable. If I have nothing to lose then I will set up a trap.  

________________________

If you are a strong player you have a very detailed and extensive tactics visualization pattern memory bank. That means that any tactical trap set by your opponent will jump up off the board and smack you on the forehead in a flash!

Received wisdom says to assume your opponent will make the best move available to them.

That idea works, I commend it to you.

I wrote a post in the forum on a book "300 Chess Rraps" by Chernev.

I find that most beginners go through a phase where they love traps to win games and the higher rated they become they find that positional chess takes over and the traps only work on lower rated players.

Unless the higher rated player has not seen the trap before.

Here is the link you can click on:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/irving-chernev-winning-chess-traps

It's black to move. White didn't protect directly the d4 pawn, because if captured by the black queen, it would be wrong (after Bh7+, the black queen will be captured).

This kind of indirect pawn or pieces protection are traps, tactics or something else? Anyone knows that, please?

Cheers.

Tactic.

There are only three times to ever set a trap:

1) The "trap" also benefits you from a positional aspect.  For example, moving a Knight from c3 to e4 in order to bring it to g5 to attack the Black King, assuming g5 is a good square for the knight in the given position, OH, AND BY THE WAY, Ne4 creates a trap in that Black loses if he takes the hanging knight on e4 due to tactics.  In cases like this, the trap is fine.  It's a "productive" move in its own right, and just happens to come with a trap attached to it!

2) You are in a severe time scramble with little to no time left on the clock, it's the first thing you see that's legal and doesn't lose outright, and clearly you don't have time to consider the positional aspects of the move.  Better to make a dubious move that leads to a trap than to not move at all and let your flag fall.

3) You are absolutely DEAD LOST, and if you play "correctly", you are just going to die a slow death down two pawns.  You have to, in essence, stir the pot.  Tip over the apple cart.  Do something out of desparation to at least give you a slight chance.  If the choice is attempt the trap or resign, might as well attempt the trap.  Once it is clear that he isn't going to fall for you, you can safely resign if there is no other way out of the dead lost position.

@TheGrobe and @ThillerFan: Thank you both for your reply

To add to what my esteemed colleague ThrillerFan has written, one could argue that much of Tal's play was "trappy", since for the most part those games don't stand up to later computer scrutiny. But since we don't play computers but instead play humans, such play, if you are blessed with such imagination, can be added to the list.