Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Famous Opening Traps and how to avoid them

Hello Trapdoor-Fans!

After a lot of work I finally released a Lichess study about opening traps. I would appreciate if you would check it out and hit the ❤ button if you like it.

ᐅ

https://lichess.org/study/CQhQn8Kg

I'm aware of the fact, that there are allready other studys about opening traps on Lichess, but as far as I know most of them doesn't have any comments or analyses at all. I don't find it very usefull for beginners, nor entertaining for better players, if the games doesn't have any comments. When I was a kid I really enjoyed the chessbook "200 New Opening Traps" by Emil Gelenczei and I think that I learned quite a lot because of the comments. Where to put your pieces, how to punish your opponent for breaking the opening rules, what would have happened if the opponent would have played an other move, etc. I hope that the study will help you to learn something about chess, just the way I did, when I was a kid.

If you love opening traps as much as I do please check out the study and hit the ❤ button. If you don't like opening traps, but you can appreciate the work I put into the study, this will be fine for me aswell. 😉

ᐅ

https://lichess.org/study/CQhQn8Kg

Right now I published 20 opening traps with comments and some analyses. I plan to release up to 50 if there are enough people who will support the work. As soon as the study hits 100 ❤ I will start releasing the next traps. Of course I still have some traps in mind , but if you want to make a suggestion feel free to commentate this post with the traps name or even better the games notation. I can not guarentee to analyse every trap you're recommending, but I will at least check them out and put them on my list, if I like them.

Thank you for your support,

Jonny

Hello Trapdoor-Fans! After a lot of work I finally released a Lichess study about opening traps. I would appreciate if you would check it out and hit the ❤ button if you like it. ᐅ https://lichess.org/study/CQhQn8Kg I'm aware of the fact, that there are allready other studys about opening traps on Lichess, but as far as I know most of them doesn't have any comments or analyses at all. I don't find it very usefull for beginners, nor entertaining for better players, if the games doesn't have any comments. When I was a kid I really enjoyed the chessbook "200 New Opening Traps" by Emil Gelenczei and I think that I learned quite a lot because of the comments. Where to put your pieces, how to punish your opponent for breaking the opening rules, what would have happened if the opponent would have played an other move, etc. I hope that the study will help you to learn something about chess, just the way I did, when I was a kid. If you love opening traps as much as I do please check out the study and hit the ❤ button. If you don't like opening traps, but you can appreciate the work I put into the study, this will be fine for me aswell. 😉 ᐅ https://lichess.org/study/CQhQn8Kg Right now I published 20 opening traps with comments and some analyses. I plan to release up to 50 if there are enough people who will support the work. As soon as the study hits 100 ❤ I will start releasing the next traps. Of course I still have some traps in mind , but if you want to make a suggestion feel free to commentate this post with the traps name or even better the games notation. I can not guarentee to analyse every trap you're recommending, but I will at least check them out and put them on my list, if I like them. Thank you for your support, Jonny

Sorry, to be slightly off topic. But you seem to enjoy non-graffiti utf characters. I have been looking for ways to indent and make good bullet lists as you do. Do you have a bank of useful utf8 characters, or are you virtuoso of the alt-U or whatever your OS prefers? Is there some extension that makes it fluent, with having the extra code translation delay?

I also find the notion of trap intriguing for what it might imply. If chess is rational, how can there be traps, I wonder. Then somebody will answer, you have to know your "theory". So are there ways to detect a trap, without "theory", and not by contest of depth calculation? Or if one must, can we characterize what makes a trap more trappy (beside being a bad move).

"breaking the opening rules" That is loaded with premises, my friend.

Traps, are the epitome of chess opening "theory" for me. Not the kind of theory I want or can learn. So I am looking for ways around having to learn the opening rules, and I am looking toward learning principles that could look at the similarities between trap situations. Are there principles, or does one have to learn trap like they learn opening "theory".

I will look at your studies, because you have clearly found what the others fail at. And I think that they have no comments because the assumption, there, is that there is nothing to say other than know the sequences....

I hope to learn something else from your studies. Thanks.

Sorry, to be slightly off topic. But you seem to enjoy non-graffiti utf characters. I have been looking for ways to indent and make good bullet lists as you do. Do you have a bank of useful utf8 characters, or are you virtuoso of the alt-U or whatever your OS prefers? Is there some extension that makes it fluent, with having the extra code translation delay? I also find the notion of trap intriguing for what it might imply. If chess is rational, how can there be traps, I wonder. Then somebody will answer, you have to know your "theory". So are there ways to detect a trap, without "theory", and not by contest of depth calculation? Or if one must, can we characterize what makes a trap more trappy (beside being a bad move). "breaking the opening rules" That is loaded with premises, my friend. Traps, are the epitome of chess opening "theory" for me. Not the kind of theory I want or can learn. So I am looking for ways around having to learn the opening rules, and I am looking toward learning principles that could look at the similarities between trap situations. Are there principles, or does one have to learn trap like they learn opening "theory". I will look at your studies, because you have clearly found what the others fail at. And I think that they have no comments because the assumption, there, is that there is nothing to say other than know the sequences.... I hope to learn something else from your studies. Thanks.

#2 Traps always imply some negligence. Usually falling into the trap means going after some gain, often material, and thus neglecting some diagonal, file or another tactic. You do not have to know all traps, by playing healthy developing, centralising moves and always mind the safety of your king you will not fall into traps, neither in the opening, nor in the middle game. It is a matter of tactics, awareness, vigilance.

#2 Traps always imply some negligence. Usually falling into the trap means going after some gain, often material, and thus neglecting some diagonal, file or another tactic. You do not have to know all traps, by playing healthy developing, centralising moves and always mind the safety of your king you will not fall into traps, neither in the opening, nor in the middle game. It is a matter of tactics, awareness, vigilance.

@dboing I mean there is an interesting trap in the symslov variation of the kings indian where white just plays a developing move and black can go wrong so I don't think all traps rely on playing bad moves although that is an aspect of traps.

@dboing I mean there is an interesting trap in the symslov variation of the kings indian where white just plays a developing move and black can go wrong so I don't think all traps rely on playing bad moves although that is an aspect of traps.

#3 Thank you. I hope to find some of that thinking in a commented set of studies about traps.

I am sure to find some of it in the op studies, no matter the premises held or expressed. The studies without comment, were obviously not having any probability of displaying any.

I suspected that to be called "trap" there had to be some analysis ambiguity. That traps could actually be good focus points for anybody wanting to tune the relative importances of static or dynamics analysis (don't worry i don't know what dynamics means, no clue, kidding, at least I know the non-chess meaning, should help). To have relatively short sequences exhibiting such ambivalence is for me a good source of puzzles, but more importantly, theory friction and possibly consolidation.

but i will have humble ambitions, just understanding the comments in those studies. I hope it is clear that I am supportive of the op effort. sometimes, i dissect too much, and bury the intent...

#3 Thank you. I hope to find some of that thinking in a commented set of studies about traps. I am sure to find some of it in the op studies, no matter the premises held or expressed. The studies without comment, were obviously not having any probability of displaying any. I suspected that to be called "trap" there had to be some analysis ambiguity. That traps could actually be good focus points for anybody wanting to tune the relative importances of static or dynamics analysis (don't worry i don't know what dynamics means, no clue, kidding, at least I know the non-chess meaning, should help). To have relatively short sequences exhibiting such ambivalence is for me a good source of puzzles, but more importantly, theory friction and possibly consolidation. but i will have humble ambitions, just understanding the comments in those studies. I hope it is clear that I am supportive of the op effort. sometimes, i dissect too much, and bury the intent...

Hey @dboing ,

I'm not sure if I understand your first question correctly, because I don't even know what a non-graffiti utf character is, but if you mean the icons, then I just googled them. I knew what kind of symbol I wanted and so I just looked it up.

As for the opening traps I have to agree that if you start thinking about it to much, then you could say, that opening traps doesn't exist. There are only good or bad moves. Anyway I'm not the guy that want to overthink those philosophical things. I just enjoy short little games.

I have to agree with @tpr when he says that traps always imply some negligence. But I want to add, that an opening trap is particularly good if the mistake isn't that obvious at the first glance. For example the game 1.e4 Nf6 2. Qh5?? Nxh5 wouldn't be a trap, it's just simply a clear mistake, that every beginner would exploit. But if you check out trap #09 (En passant Mate) in my study you will find a good example of what I would call an opening trap. Whites 8th move sets a trap, that isn't that obvious because at the first glance castling looks understandeble for black. But after castling the game is allready lost for him because he did not show enough attention and overlooked the great 9.Bxh7+!!. The position after blacks 8th move appeared over 3.200 times on lichess, even on the highest level, so you can say that black made an understandable move. As you can see in this game even players with a rating over 2.700 points fall for the trap:

https://lichess.org/qGD8RyuR
So yeah, I think that this is a good example for an opening trap.

Thank you for your feedback and I hope that my answer was helpful for you.

Best, Jonny

Hey @dboing , I'm not sure if I understand your first question correctly, because I don't even know what a non-graffiti utf character is, but if you mean the icons, then I just googled them. I knew what kind of symbol I wanted and so I just looked it up. As for the opening traps I have to agree that if you start thinking about it to much, then you could say, that opening traps doesn't exist. There are only good or bad moves. Anyway I'm not the guy that want to overthink those philosophical things. I just enjoy short little games. I have to agree with @tpr when he says that traps always imply some negligence. But I want to add, that an opening trap is particularly good if the mistake isn't that obvious at the first glance. For example the game 1.e4 Nf6 2. Qh5?? Nxh5 wouldn't be a trap, it's just simply a clear mistake, that every beginner would exploit. But if you check out trap #09 (En passant Mate) in my study you will find a good example of what I would call an opening trap. Whites 8th move sets a trap, that isn't that obvious because at the first glance castling looks understandeble for black. But after castling the game is allready lost for him because he did not show enough attention and overlooked the great 9.Bxh7+!!. The position after blacks 8th move appeared over 3.200 times on lichess, even on the highest level, so you can say that black made an understandable move. As you can see in this game even players with a rating over 2.700 points fall for the trap: https://lichess.org/qGD8RyuR So yeah, I think that this is a good example for an opening trap. Thank you for your feedback and I hope that my answer was helpful for you. Best, Jonny

I think all three posts are helpful. I put your study (ies) on my agenda. I have dispersed ways, so I may give at look and make little progress at a time. That does not mean forgotten.

Not, to be nitpicking on words, but I think that when tpr uses the word negligence, and after makes it more precise, tpr does show that there is some apparent gain, so some arguments in favor on the move that goes into trap, it is not pure blunder right away (i guess it would be good to give trap some tempo scale. a n-turn trap. or so. if so clear cut). The neglect is not to weigh correctly the pros and cons (lack of experience, or inherent ambiguity in a position, if that is possible, a hidden cliff?, like in the looney cartoons, it takes a while before Wiley-coyote finds out gravity will take him down).

And you gave an exemple of just that:
"he did not show enough attention and overlooked the great 9.Bxh7+!!" Maybe negligence has gathered its own meaning as a noun, and diverged from the verb "to neglect", but for me overlooking is synonymous to neglect. So you are both agreeing, but you gave the bonus of an example. which is good omen for your study. so thanks. Also is this a 1 turn trap?

"The position after blacks 8th move appeared over 3.200 times on lichess, even on the highest level"
did you try filtering by time control? if you include bullet, bullet will dominate, blitz even more. try filtering out bullet and blitz, see if the highest level. or maybe you did. do you share such information in your study (I will look).

Also, the opening explorer module is a book, not a population database. only unique sequence that emerge from the current position. (so you may have many high level players following the same path that does not go through that position from the preceding one, but one that did, it counts pioneering not popularity is what I want to say. also if 10000 chose that same path until truncation, but 100 use another path (same, until truncation) you will still have only 2 different truncated paths. I don't know about the explorer outside of correspondence, with full game sequences, actually i don't know what my argument means there. still a bit confused about that. Are the full sequences made unique, but then truncated for correspondance (meaning there could be duplicate truncated sequences), or are they unique truncated sequences as well. I may be wrong about this. What do you know?

thanks for answering the side question too. how did you call the symbol in front of the study links, how do you google that. maybe a good site with similar themed characters (they are not icons, as they are not image files, i can paste them in my text files, as long as the encoding is Unicode or utf8, which most every text-box on the internet assumes nowadays, the graffitis, is because now a lot of fonts, carrying the full gamut of Unicode characters can use accents or diacritical marks, or something like that to use vertical space to the point of appearing having been written vertically, They can be on top of other left-to-right lines. there are some examples here on some forums, or profiles. They are nice graffiti).

I think all three posts are helpful. I put your study (ies) on my agenda. I have dispersed ways, so I may give at look and make little progress at a time. That does not mean forgotten. Not, to be nitpicking on words, but I think that when tpr uses the word negligence, and after makes it more precise, tpr does show that there is some apparent gain, so some arguments in favor on the move that goes into trap, it is not pure blunder right away (i guess it would be good to give trap some tempo scale. a n-turn trap. or so. if so clear cut). The neglect is not to weigh correctly the pros and cons (lack of experience, or inherent ambiguity in a position, if that is possible, a hidden cliff?, like in the looney cartoons, it takes a while before Wiley-coyote finds out gravity will take him down). And you gave an exemple of just that: "he did not show enough attention and overlooked the great 9.Bxh7+!!" Maybe negligence has gathered its own meaning as a noun, and diverged from the verb "to neglect", but for me overlooking is synonymous to neglect. So you are both agreeing, but you gave the bonus of an example. which is good omen for your study. so thanks. Also is this a 1 turn trap? "The position after blacks 8th move appeared over 3.200 times on lichess, even on the highest level" did you try filtering by time control? if you include bullet, bullet will dominate, blitz even more. try filtering out bullet and blitz, see if the highest level. or maybe you did. do you share such information in your study (I will look). Also, the opening explorer module is a book, not a population database. only unique sequence that emerge from the current position. (so you may have many high level players following the same path that does not go through that position from the preceding one, but one that did, it counts pioneering not popularity is what I want to say. also if 10000 chose that same path until truncation, but 100 use another path (same, until truncation) you will still have only 2 different truncated paths. I don't know about the explorer outside of correspondence, with full game sequences, actually i don't know what my argument means there. still a bit confused about that. Are the full sequences made unique, but then truncated for correspondance (meaning there could be duplicate truncated sequences), or are they unique truncated sequences as well. I may be wrong about this. What do you know? thanks for answering the side question too. how did you call the symbol in front of the study links, how do you google that. maybe a good site with similar themed characters (they are not icons, as they are not image files, i can paste them in my text files, as long as the encoding is Unicode or utf8, which most every text-box on the internet assumes nowadays, the graffitis, is because now a lot of fonts, carrying the full gamut of Unicode characters can use accents or diacritical marks, or something like that to use vertical space to the point of appearing having been written vertically, They can be on top of other left-to-right lines. there are some examples here on some forums, or profiles. They are nice graffiti).

Hey @dboing ,

well white needs to find some more good moves then only Bxh7!! But by giving up his bishop you can assume, that he also saw the rest of the combination. In my study I dont go to deep in the analyse of the 3.200 players. Occasionally I just simply tell you how many people fall for the trap. I mean, everyone can click on the book and check it for themself. Of course a position can be reached by more then one move order, and I don't take this into account, but I wouldn't be to concerned about it.

Anyway here are the stats for the position:

The position appeared in over 3.200 Lichess games:
ᐅ 525 times in Bullet (145 players found the winning move)
ᐅ 2004 times in Blitz (564 players found the winning move)
ᐅ 536 times in Rapid (148 players found the winning move)
ᐅ 173 times in Classical (63 players found the winning move)

On top my Chessbase Database found additionall 81 over the board games.

In the end I really don't want to go to deep into a philosophical discussion. My english isn't native and so I occasionally have to look up words. If I have a choice, then I pick what sounds good for me. If we start debating if this or that word would been better, then I really can not take part of it because my english isn't good enough to do so.

I just analysed some famous short games I like and occasionally I'll give some informations about how often the position appeared in practice, to show the reader that it has a practical value studying the game. I have to admit, that it shows some intelligence that you question the numbers, but talking to much about it in the analyse would ruin the entertainment in my opinion. So feel free to do some research yourself by clicking on the book symbol in the study if you're interested. 🙂

Regarding your sidequestion: For the book symbol I just googled "Emoji Book" for the flame I googled "Emoji Flame". Then I just simply copy + paste the first one I see in a header, because they will work in any case.

Best, Jonny

Hey @dboing , well white needs to find some more good moves then only Bxh7!! But by giving up his bishop you can assume, that he also saw the rest of the combination. In my study I dont go to deep in the analyse of the 3.200 players. Occasionally I just simply tell you how many people fall for the trap. I mean, everyone can click on the book and check it for themself. Of course a position can be reached by more then one move order, and I don't take this into account, but I wouldn't be to concerned about it. Anyway here are the stats for the position: The position appeared in over 3.200 Lichess games: ᐅ 525 times in Bullet (145 players found the winning move) ᐅ 2004 times in Blitz (564 players found the winning move) ᐅ 536 times in Rapid (148 players found the winning move) ᐅ 173 times in Classical (63 players found the winning move) On top my Chessbase Database found additionall 81 over the board games. In the end I really don't want to go to deep into a philosophical discussion. My english isn't native and so I occasionally have to look up words. If I have a choice, then I pick what sounds good for me. If we start debating if this or that word would been better, then I really can not take part of it because my english isn't good enough to do so. I just analysed some famous short games I like and occasionally I'll give some informations about how often the position appeared in practice, to show the reader that it has a practical value studying the game. I have to admit, that it shows some intelligence that you question the numbers, but talking to much about it in the analyse would ruin the entertainment in my opinion. So feel free to do some research yourself by clicking on the book symbol in the study if you're interested. 🙂 Regarding your sidequestion: For the book symbol I just googled "Emoji Book" for the flame I googled "Emoji Flame". Then I just simply copy + paste the first one I see in a header, because they will work in any case. Best, Jonny

Many thanks for the trap study. It is now one of my favorite links. I’m looking forward to seeing your future additions :)

Many thanks for the trap study. It is now one of my favorite links. I’m looking forward to seeing your future additions :)

@Jonnyx I went and looked (#9 en passant). hours of fun in perspective. Don't worry I am done with the words... unless I bug in the comments...
If I ever feel like making a dissertation about it, I will keep it in one of my secret workshop studies..... until it makes sense...
Nice Work. If anybody has ready my comment about the nature of lichess openings books regarding uniqueness, please contact me.

Also, did i understand that you built your own population database on local machine out of lichess full and published chunk by chunk database. Do you keep it updated? and do you use Chess database software in particular, or a general relational database (I assume the former). which one. Maybe you started long time ago... I am curious about that experience if you can share.

@Jonnyx I went and looked (#9 en passant). hours of fun in perspective. Don't worry I am done with the words... unless I bug in the comments... If I ever feel like making a dissertation about it, I will keep it in one of my secret workshop studies..... until it makes sense... Nice Work. If anybody has ready my comment about the nature of lichess openings books regarding uniqueness, please contact me. Also, did i understand that you built your own population database on local machine out of lichess full and published chunk by chunk database. Do you keep it updated? and do you use Chess database software in particular, or a general relational database (I assume the former). which one. Maybe you started long time ago... I am curious about that experience if you can share.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.