Go back
Setting a trap

Setting a trap

Only Chess

F

Annapolis MD

Joined
16 Aug 05
Moves
947
Clock
28 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by orfeo
EXACTLY.

This is what I was coming back here to say. In non-chess contexts, you talk about someone walking into a trap, or blundering into a trap. The fact that someone blundered doesn't mean there isn't a trap!

A blunder pure and simple would be something that I didn't encourage my opponent to do. But I quite deliberately left him with some attract ...[text shortened]... ar your suggestions as to how else I might have won the game after MY blunder of losing my rook.
Working your opponent into a skewer is more of a trap, IMHO.

or

There is a difference between your opponent tripping and falling to the ground, and you purposely tripping your opponent to make him fall to the ground.

😀

s

Joined
12 Feb 05
Moves
47202
Clock
28 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

A nice opening trap (that I'm afraid I haven't been able to pull off yet) is:

1. d4 f5
2. Bg5!? h6
3. Bh4 g5
4. Bg3 f4?



White plays 5. e3!, because 5. ...fxg3?? fails to 6. Qh5#.

5. e3 h5
6. Be2! Nf6
7. exf4 h4
8. fxg5 and white has a won game.

C

Joined
25 Sep 05
Moves
5899
Clock
28 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kjl291
If we are being technical, anytime you fall into a trap you have blundered, so I wouldn't quibble too much between the two, if your "trap" makes your distracts your opponent and makes him take his eye off the ball and therefore he blunders.
I disagree completely. I think falling into a trap is a blunder, but blundering by no means represents a trap. A trap implies a conscious effort on someone's part to entice someone into a blunder, but a mere blunder is someone making a mistake.

Ro

Joined
11 Oct 04
Moves
5344
Clock
28 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

I think relative abilities must be taken into account.

If a 1200 player, playing an 1800 player, takes a piece that is offered up, which leads, say, to a highly subtle, six move tactical resource that leads to a clear winning position, it is hard to see how that is a blunder, but it is clearly falling into a trap. However, if Anand were to do it, then it might reasonably be called one.

However, one book I read (and which I think I agree with) is that, if you are playing a much stronger player, and they appear to offer a piece and you cannot see why you shouldn't take it, then you MUST take it. Sounds controversial (shouldn't you assume that they haven't made a mistake and do something different?), but if you don't, then how will you ever exploit a mistake against a stronger player, as you will always think there is something subtle lying behind it?

o
Paralysed analyst

On a ship of fools

Joined
26 May 04
Moves
25780
Clock
28 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Chesswick
I disagree completely. I think falling into a trap is a blunder, but blundering by no means represents a trap. A trap implies a conscious effort on someone's part to entice someone into a blunder, but a mere blunder is someone making a mistake.
Um, you're not disagreeing completely. You're pretty much saying the same thing but then adding 'the reverse is not true'. Which is entirely consistent.

C

Joined
25 Sep 05
Moves
5899
Clock
29 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by orfeo
Um, you're not disagreeing completely. You're pretty much saying the same thing but then adding 'the reverse is not true'. Which is entirely consistent.
Good point, I agree completely! 😉

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.