Is Traps in chess are really worth spending time?
Sort:
Hi everyone You know today I saw an interview of none other than the current former world no.1 @GM Magnus Carlsen And he was saying bunch of stuff but the main thing which brought my attention is when he said he has never played or even tried to learn and kind of traps after hearing that there was a question in my mind should I really spend my time on traps or just to learn openings and do Puzzle. It's your opinion say whatever you'll think is right
Bro I know but still I wanna know is it really worth learning
Jun 29, 2023
0
#4
SadLoCk02 написал:
Bro I know but still I wanna know is it really worth learning
Idk, traps are fun, but they don't improve your chess knowledge.
Jun 29, 2023
0
#5
Traps are not important. Bad traps (traps that leave you in a poor position if opponent knows how to play) is a waste of time. Good traps (traps that leave you with at least a level position if opponent knows how to play) can be studied if you find it fun.
Toldsted wrote:
Traps are not important. Bad traps (traps that leave you in a poor position if opponent knows how to play) is a waste of time. Good traps (traps that leave you with at least a level position if opponent knows how to play) can be studied if you find it fun.
Yeah. Every opening has “traps”, by which I mean moves that lead to a much worse position, but there are some openings in which those “traps” are very intuitive moves, while the moves that equalize or gain an advantage are very unintuitive moves. For example, in the Knight Attack Italian, after d5 and exd5, Nxd5 is rather intuitive to a beginner, but it is a very bad move which leads to the Fried Liver, and White is winning rather easily from here.
Study traps that leave you in a worse position only to prevent falling into one. Playing traps that leave you in a worse position than before is easily one of the worst habits in chess (however, some traps are great according to theory and should be studied- but they can’t be counted as traps because the best move is expected). The Wayward Queen is a prime example of a bad trap.
Black is up in development when he shouldn’t be. Barely into the game, black is better.
This is an example of a good trap. To your average player, at first glance, black should play d6, because that defends e5, while the knight on c6, the only defender of e5 at the moment, is being attacked (he could also play Nf6 to counterattack e4). Black, however, plays a6- the best move according to theory. Why? Doesn’t this just lose a pawn? No- if white falls for the trap, takes on c6, and takes on e5, the fork Qd4 turns the game for black. After e4 is taken, white’s king is unable to castle which is a serious issue (if he blocks with the queen, Qxe2 forces the king to take back and exposes it). What if white doesn’t fall for the trap, though? Is black in a good position? No. He’s in a great position.
In this diagram, black has achieved tons of space, active development, and is constantly pressuring white’s center. Of course, his d-pawn is backward, but his queenside space compensates for this weakness. Overall, both sides are in a great position- hence why this opening has been so popular for so many centuries.
This is the difference between good and bad traps- one gives the advantage to the opposing side and one is simply a chance for the other side to blunder, but the best move is still expected.
oh... I've studied two trap lines in kings gambit and LOVE THEM!
i was studying this line after seeing that taking the pawn has a whopping 73% win rate! no more 3.Nf3s for me HERE
another AWESOME trap I love in the modern is:
I love just how sneaky this line is because Kf2 looks weak. I imagine that any players that face this line might just quit playing the modern because even in the Be2 line, I had a 55% win rate.