Opening traps

@Carnivorum, not saying in a bad way we're all here to improve, you're probably a 1600s player do you know that?

The amount of one move blunders/losses to 1600/1700 you're making suggests that. Why not sew up you pockets so you don't have so many holes?

If you're a 1600 or so player, are you a good chess player or not? Statistically speaking, a 1600 player is playing better than 90%+ people who play chess. So, I guess you can consider yourself a good player.

But on the other hand, a 1600 player is still some distance behind 2200 or even 2000.

@congruent said
@Carnivorum, not saying in a bad way we're all here to improve, you're probably a 1600s player do you know that?

The amount of one move blunders/losses to 1600/1700 you're making suggests that. Why not sew up you pockets so you don't have so many holes?

If you're a 1600 or so player, are you a good chess player or not? Statistically speaking, a 1600 player is playing ...[text shortened]... ood player.

But on the other hand, a 1600 player is still some distance behind 2200 or even 2000.

And yet another one fell victim to the Tennison gambit.

On move 7 he was mate.

Babes in the woods.....

And I had one once again!

Once again I went for the mighty Budapest Gambit, and once again the enemy turned it into a London.

And again I set the simplistic trap, and again it became a stumbling block for the enemy, and he had to give up a bishop in the opening.

And yet he thought long and hard before throwing himself into the misery. He thought for a full 40 seconds before swallowing the poisoned pawn, and he still didn't see the simple trap.
And yet I my battle was with a 1700+, not a raw beginner.

But, as the saying goes: “If you offer them a piece, they will look suspiciously at what is behind it, but they always eat pawns!”

But it isn't very difficult to see that that lady is going to take your bishop?

Anyway: Don't ask how it is possible, but take the bishop and run!

There are some funny little traps against the Caro-Kann.

Here I had a little joke, which was going to cost the enemy two pawns in the opening.

That turned out to be enough to make the enemy surrender. On move 8

Isn't that a bit premature? 🤔

@congruent said
Lol are you bribing you opponents or what? A few games where you win in 10 or so moves. With the hole at d5 what is black thinking with Qf6??

[pgn][Event "Rated Classical game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/SGo5xuyg"]
[Date "2024.02.22"]
[White "Carnivorum"]
[Black "Gunaydin16"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2024.02.22"]
[UTCTime "20:46:29"]
[WhiteElo "1887"]
[BlackElo ...[text shortened]... 3. e4 a6 4. Bc4 f5 5. d3 f4 6. a3 Bc5 7. g3 Qf6 8. gxf4 exf4 9. Nd5 Qd6 10. Bxf4 Qf8 1-0


[/pgn]

So I had here a nice game of 8 moves. Not so much a trap, but the enemy tried to trick me, didn't work. Then I tried to trick the enemy, and that worked a lot better, because the enemy made a terrible mistake, which gave me a mate in 2 moves.

First I offered him a horse of mine, but taking the beast would lead to mate in 2, so he declined that sacrifice, and went to block one line of that mate in 2 with his queen.
Immediately after that block he saw that he overlooked another line that would also give me a mate in 2, so he surrendered.

On move 8. 😆

Oh how horrible is the Tennison gambit!

Got another one today against a beginner. He lasted all of 7 moves.

The Tennison gambit got on the board through a weird mix up of moves, but in the end the Tennison gambit was there.

I hope he learned something from this, then his suffering was not in vain.

I guess he got at least the basics in this 7 mover. But of course a lot more study is required to get all the finer points of the Tennison gambit.

The Almighty, in His infinite goodness, again blessed me with some particularly pleasant experiences:

"Winning a short game is a particularly pleasant experience."
H. Bouwmeester, in his book "Chess Book 11, 100 miniature games"

I played against a 1675?, a provisionally rated opponent. Probably a raw beginner.

Our first game ended when the enemy blundered away a knight on the sixth move: https://lichess.org/zDWz7PPYKanm

And then he wanted revenge. I obliged him. We got a Tennison gambit position on the board by means of an unusual move order. He went to protect his extra pawn with his queen, and that did him in.

The mate came on move 9: https://lichess.org/6nZruyNDKsx0

Might this maybe not be the way to retain novice chess players for the noble game of chess?

Might such blows be too much for fragile young souls?

So I had another one of those games, the enemy begins with d5, I do Nf6 in an honest attempt to turn it into a Budapest gambit, and what does the enemy do? He plays 2. Bf4. Obviously trying to turn it into a London. So I do 2. ... c6, in order to give my queen a chance to shoot out over the diagonal.
The enemy plays after that e3, confirming my suspicions that he wants to turn this in a London, so I play g5, attacking his bishop. The bishop takes my pawn on g5. My queen shoots out to a5, and checks the king. The check has to be stopped, so he does c3, and my queen knocks off his bishop on g5. 😁

I'm starting to like the London system!

@carnivorum said
And yet another one fell victim to the Tennison gambit.

On move 7 he was mate.

Babes in the woods.....

[pgn] [Event "Rated Classical game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/mFBS8FYO"]
[Date "2024.03.16"]
[White "Carnivorum"]
[Black "Celesnes"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2024.03.16"]
[UTCTime "21:20:24"]
[WhiteElo "1914"]
[BlackElo "1813"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+ ...[text shortened]... 6 6. Ngxe4 Nbd7 7. Nd6# { White wins by checkmate. } 1-0 [/pgn]

https://tinyurl.com/Tenn-necro

@suzianne said
Depends on Black playing c6 which is an idiot move in this context.

Bs"d

And I got myself a funny Stafford gambit, the most elementary variation there is.

After the preliminary moves the enemy started to "pin" my horse on my queen.
My horse went for a walk, the enemy jumped on my queen, and as a result got mated in 2 moves. 😆

And then there's this, from Reddit r/chess:



Just to clarify, I’m not amazing at chess (1200 rapid chess.com) but I think I’m qualified to say this.

I’ve noticed a lot of beginners flock towards certain trap openings, which are bad with perfect play but often incite the opponent to make game-losing mistakes. The Stafford gambit, Englund gambit, Tennison gambit, etc come to mind. It makes sense that beginners are attracted to them. They’re different, fun to play, and at lower levels may genuinely boost the rating of someone who plays it because of the number of people who fall for it. Regardless, if you want to genuinely improve, you should not be playing these openings.

The first and most important issue with these openings is that you are essentially handing control over who wins the game to your opponent. If he falls into the trap, you win. If he doesn’t, you have an unenviable position, and have a high likelihood of losing the game. As such, rather than playing a game of chess which is influenced by the decisions made by both parties, you are engaging in a form of gambling; you are “betting” rating points that your opponent didn’t study the line or won’t be able to see it.

Additionally, when you win because your opponent fell into a trap, it can hardly be claimed that you won because you played better than your opponent. Instead, you won because you had memorized a line that your opponent didn’t. Similarly, it can’t be claimed that you have developed your chess skills in any way when you win like this, because you never had to think about any of your moves. This means that a game won through an opening trap is a game whose learning potential was squandered.

In conclusion, playing opening traps as a regular part of your repertoire will prevent you from learning from your games, and really from participating in them at all. Any gains in rating from these traps are illusory, as it does not reflect your genuine playing ability. If you want to improve, you should get into the habit of playing legitimate openings and assuming perfect play from your opponent.