Normally in chess literature we are 'warned ', against learning traps, better to begin
at the endgame, it will yield the most benefit, as the game progresses, you will be
heading towards your area of strength etc etc 'Dont play traps, traps are bad!' It
struck me that nothing could be further from the truth, for a study of traps can yield
much good and what is more, they are fun! Learning chess should be fun, should it
not? Take for example this little beauty, from it we learn,
1. Ignoring development can be fatal
2. Pawn grabbing in the opening can be fatal
3. Ignoring the positional requirements can be fatal
4 Mating patterns
5. Strong and weak squares
6. Tactics (double attack)
7. Developing an initiative
8. Strong centre
9. Learning chess should be fun
Thus in the space of seven simple moves, many excellent concepts can be gleaned.
Did i mention learning chess should be fun. . . . . . just saying 🙂
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Opening traps are fun at first, until you play the exact same game hundreds of times. I swear if someone falls for my Bxh7+ in the first 10 moves again Im going to lose it. Its like yeah, I won, but so what. I didnt even have to think.
I would much rather win a game with a struggle. Middlegames and endgames are where all the fun is at.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47So your objecting to winning, interesting, but shhh, listen, ill tell you a secret, winning is fun, losing, no matter how 'deep and intellectual', our experience was, is not. Anything other than that is pretentious.
Opening traps are fun at first, until you play the exact same game hundreds of times. I swear if someone falls for my Bxh7+ in the first 10 moves again Im going to lose it. Its like yeah, I won, but so what. I didnt even have to think.
I would much rather win a game with a struggle. Middlegames and endgames are where all the fun is at.
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWinning is fun, playing the exact same game dozens of times is not. You dont learn anything from it. As with most things in life the journey is more fulfilling than the goal you are trying to achieve. Or mabye Im just weird😕
So your objecting to winning, interesting, but shhh, listen, ill tell you a secret, winning is fun, losing, no matter how 'deep and intellectual', our experience was, is not. Anything other than that is pretentious.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieas much as i like the idea of the thread, the 'pretentious' part is going too far.
So your objecting to winning, interesting, but shhh, listen, ill tell you a secret, winning is fun, losing, no matter how 'deep and intellectual', our experience was, is not. Anything other than that is pretentious.
winning can be fun, but winning can feel really bad, too. loosing can be 'unfun', but it can also be a looooot of fun.
some weeks ago, i had a long discussion about the point, that chess is about winning. but it is actually not. not even the bare game. at least, as long, as you look at the rules of the game. there is no such rule as 'you must try to checkmate'. it is the question what you make out of the rules...
anyways, just in case you dont believe it, but people not always pretend, that chess is not about winning.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47Traps just dont happen, there are certain conditions that must be present for them to work, and we are interested in learning what those elements are. Why this should be lacking in any way, i cannot at present say. You play to win the game.
Winning is fun, playing the exact same game dozens of times is not. You dont learn anything from it. As with most things in life the journey is more fulfilling than the goal you are trying to achieve. Or mabye Im just weird😕
Originally posted by tharkeshI say its pretentious! Yes, there are many exciting games we play where we are on the edge, perhaps our opponent shall win, or perhaps we shall win and the result is in the balance, or perhaps there is a very instructive point to be gleaned, even though we lost, but i defy anyone to state that losing is fun, no way. It reminds me of a Nirvana song, smells like teen spirit, 'its fun to lose and to pretend'. The closest thing that one can state is that chess is a learning experience and that in sustaining many losses we learn, but to state that the process is fun, is akin to intellectual sadomasochism. You play to win the game.
as much as i like the idea of the thread, the 'pretentious' part is going too far.
winning can be fun, but winning can feel really bad, too. loosing can be 'unfun', but it can also be a looooot of fun.
some weeks ago, i had a long discussion about the point, that chess is about winning. but it is actually not. not even the bare game. at least, as long ...[text shortened]... case you dont believe it, but people not always pretend, that chess is not about winning.
time for another trap, a favourite. This one features the very instructive and
interesting element of containment of a trapped piece, weak squares, danger of a
premature attack, sealing entry points on a semi/open file, planning, development
of initiative,development with tempo.
learning chess should be fun!
I got caught in this trap but avoided mate although resigned a few moves later when all hope was lost. As white I couldn't make myself not grab that pawn then grab the other pawn and fork the rook and queen. What should white do because it seems a good plan for white initially? When black brings the queen out then trouble happens. Just asking and if it isn't sound for white then I will avoid it like the plague.
Thanks.
The Second Trap
You started off well Robbie but here you strayed of course.
Opening Traps are the cartoons of the Chess world.
The pie in the face, the bucket of water over the head, the banana skin.
You cannot show a trap and leave it with "...with a huge plus for white."
Who wants to see a huge plus?
I can see a huge plus when I look at the Lucena position in a book on endings.
We want to see the man fall down a manhole with sac sac mate.
Also you failed to mention in this position after 7.Nh3
Black can play 7...h5!
Which is unclear. 8.Qg5 Qd4 and Be7.
If going for the trap is 4.Qg4 and Black falling into it is 4...Qf6 and 5...Qxf2
then Black has fallen into it and is wriggling big time.
It's not (IMO) a trap but very close to being a line of theory.
Traps and Zaps is a book by Pandolfini - I don't know if he has this in it.
Most likely yes. But I'd put it under Zaps and then show the following game.
Leave out the word 'trap'.
Here we can show a very instructive game feeding the reader
with ideas and at the same time amuse and entertain him.
(the fun bit about learning tactics from cartoons)
This is from a simul by Horowitz (White), USA 1940.
Originally posted by Porky1016In the first trap i would play an immediate c3 kicking the knight, if black takes the f3
Robbie, I am referring to the first trap you posted. Forgot that part.
knight i would simply take with the queen (development with tempo attacking f7) and
then play d4 (establishing a strong centre) with a good game. No materialistic pawn
grabbing! what's the point of dying with a belly full of pawns? See to the requirements
of the position and you will do well! Remember, Chess should be fun!