N3l50n wrote:
@TheGrobe and @ThillerFan: Thank you both for your reply
______________________
I ' LL. BE. LURKING. FOR. YOU
Creating traps vs positional play
Sort:
Mar 11, 2014
0
#23
Reminds me of one particular game I played, early in the opening I had an opportunity to set a trap. If my opponent took the loose pawn, I win his bishop. But if not, my position was junk.
But I was almost positive he would fall for it. Posture, where his eyes were focused, etc.
I thought and thought and thought,and finally decided not to try it.
The game went on a very long time, deep into the endgame, with the win so agonizingly close, but just out of reach.
And it finally ended in a draw. Around move 60.
And I never forgave myself for not trying to win it on move 9.
well what if he didn't fall for it?then what?what was his rating by the way
TheGrobe wrote:
Tactic.
Today I did something like that previous tactic. I thought: what would black do at move 15 if I attack his queen with the bishop, leaving the pawn (directly) unguarded? Does that compromise my position? I don't see how...
So, I did it and black took the pawn... After that, even with best defense, he went in a worse position. He didn't do the best defense neither saw the mate threat and I checkmated him after that.
As a non trapy patzer here, I think playing for sublte traps is good, just like ozzie said tal's play was trappy (however sophisticated it was) and he even held the title.
Also in a tournament setting, not that i know, I could see going for the point as a smart idea. similar strength often results in a draw, draws might not win.
Of course as was once said "it is often better to sacrifice your opponents peice's" It is also better if they are the ones taking the risks, but in the right situation . . .
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ok, traps are an excellent way to learn tactics. Here are two examples of traps, one good one bad.
First the bad trap:
And now a good one:
I completely disagree that you give Bf4 a ?
Bf4 Qb4+ Bd2 Qxb2 Nc3 is completely winning for white, and is the line that I always play against the Englund.
Mar 13, 2014
0
#28
The point of my post is that the Englund is an example of a bad trap. After 4.Bf4, Black has hopes of a complex game that just about justifies the trap. Nunn considers the line you give to be unclear, and Stefan Bucker has found interesting (but perhaps insufficient) resources for Black. After Qd5, Black doesn't have enough compensation. I wasn't the first to give Bf4 a "?" The British trainer John Littlewood also gave it a "?" and even Stefan Bucker preferred Qd5. John Nunn argued that 4.Nc3 Ne5 5.e4! is a simple refutation of the Englund.
Basically, if you want to get muddy in the Englund gambit as white by playing Bf4, you will only be making Black happy. It's that sort of position Black was hoping for in the first place.
SmyslovFan wrote:
. 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.
J.H. Blackburne, another geat swindler
SmyslovFan wrote:
The point of my post is that the Englund is an example of a bad trap. After 4.Bf4, Black has hopes of a complex game that just about justifies the trap. Nunn considers the line you give to be unclear, and Stefan Bucker has found interesting (but perhaps insufficient) resources for Black. After Qd5, Black doesn't have enough compensation. I wasn't the first to give Bf4 a "?" The British trainer, John Littlewood, also gave it a "?" and even Stefan Bucker preferred Qd5. John Nunn argued that 4.Nc3 Ne5 5.e4! is a simple refutation of the Englund.
Basically, if you want to get muddy in the Englund gambit as white by playing Bf4, you will only be making Black happy. It's that sort of position Black was hoping for in the first place.
Houdini 4 gives it +1.4 for white after Nc3 (even the position after Qb4+ Nc3?? Qxf4 Nd5 is playable for white though, so the trap is a complete fail).
And if I can refute an opening at home and not have to think any to get a winning position, even with some complications, I would rather do that then have to play a slightly better position at the board.
Also, note that +1.4 is a very low estimate. As you go deeper into the lines (or even let the computer think longer), the evaluation always goes up, generally closer to between 2-2.5, which is completely winning.
4.Bf4 is white's best line against the Englund- or almost: 4.Bg5 is equally good. White can even pick between 9.Nd5, and 9.Rb3 Qa5 10.a3- both give him a huge advantage.
Oh, and it's not really white's problem if Black was hoping getting a lost position...
I randomly decided to try out the englund, and won with black. Not exactly an accurate game in blitz, but who expects accuracy in the englund.
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.
Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't know "chess truth" if it rose up and slammed me in the 'nads! Therefore, your cheap traps might work on me.