From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc


Years ago this old book by Reinfeld and Horowitz was discussed here,
meeting with much disapprobation.

But the group was a different place then. Aside from the thousands
squabbling over the minutiae of USCF politics or the vexed question of
whether Fischer was the greatest player ever, or greater than the
greatest, most players were concerned with improving their game.

And this book is not a manual, not a games collection, not an opening guide.

It is a collection of blunders.

And it is great fun.

Many moves contain threats. A trap is a move which does not threaten
anything directly, but becomes a threat when the opponent makes a
plausible but tactically incorrect response.

For example in Ed Lasker - Englund (given in his "Chess Secrets" and in
this book), Lasker makes the very normal looking move as white of
occupying an open file with his rook. Such innocuous looking moves
often receive little analysis from the opponent. The reason for the
move, after all, is obvious. In this case Englund castled and was mated forthwith.

A pitfall is a trap, but a trap which is baited. The one setting the
pitfall may leave something en pris, or allow the opponent to occupy
what seems to be a good square. Once again, the move setting up the
pitfall will usually be a good move in itself, even if the opponent does
not fall for it.

A swindle is a trap or pitfall set by a player with a losing game.
These are by far the most fun. And since the player is already losing,
the move setting up the pitfall need not be sound. In a dead lost game
I once moved a pawn to a square where it could be taken in one of three
ways. Declining it won immediately (the old fritz program on a 386
found it in five seconds) but any capture was fatal. Who, however,
could resist taking it? Surely one capture must be sound?

I regret to say that it gives me more pleasure to recall winning that
game than recalling my first win against a master in a vastly better game.

This book consists of dozens of examples of this sort of play, ranging
from the trivial to the very complex. There are chapters on simple
traps, opening traps, how to set traps, how to see your opponents traps,
how to counter a trap with a trap, and examples of very trappy play from
the world's best - some of whom fall victim to very subtle pitfalls.

Diagrams are quite frequent, so the book is easily readable by lazy
people like myself, who don't want to set up a board. Or while traveling.

There's not too much here aside from the above, though the story of
Horowitz and the Professional Rook Odds Player is almost worth the price
of the book itself.

I read this book as a teen, and it perverted and distorted my chess
style for all time. I will be forever grateful.

William Hyde



The authors try to come up with a taxonomy of traps, pitfalls, and
swindles, but it doesn't make much sense, and later in the book they
call such things "gimmicks".
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

William Hyde wrote:

Years ago this old book by Reinfeld and Horowitz was discussed here,
meeting with much disapprobation.

But the group was a different place then.-a Aside from the thousands squabbling over the minutiae of USCF politics or the vexed question of whether Fischer was the greatest player ever, or greater than the
greatest, most players were concerned with improving their game.

And this book is not a manual, not a games collection, not an opening
guide.

It is a collection of blunders.

And it is great fun.

Many moves contain threats.-a A trap is a move which does not threaten anything directly, but becomes a threat when the opponent makes a
plausible but tactically incorrect response.

For example in Ed Lasker - Englund (given in his "Chess Secrets" and in
this book), Lasker makes the very normal looking move as white of
occupying an open file with his rook.-a Such innocuous looking moves
often receive little analysis from the opponent. The reason for the
move, after all, is obvious. In this case Englund castled and was mated forthwith.

A pitfall is a trap, but a trap which is baited.-a The one setting the pitfall may leave something en pris, or allow the opponent to occupy
what seems to be a good square.-a Once again, the move setting up the pitfall will usually be a good move in itself, even if the opponent does
not fall for it.

A swindle is a trap or pitfall set by a player with a losing game. These
are by far the most fun. And since the player is already losing, the
move setting up the pitfall need not be sound.-a In a dead lost game I
once moved a pawn to a square where it could be taken in one of three ways.-a Declining it won immediately (the old fritz program on a 386
found it in five seconds) but any capture was fatal.-a Who, however,
could resist taking it?-a Surely one capture must be sound?

I regret to say that it gives me more pleasure to recall winning that
game than recalling my first win against a master in a vastly better game.

This book consists of dozens of examples of this sort of play, ranging
from the trivial to the very complex. There are chapters on simple
traps, opening traps, how to set traps, how to see your opponents traps,
how to counter a trap with a trap, and examples of very trappy play from
the world's best - some of whom fall victim to very subtle pitfalls.

Diagrams are quite frequent, so the book is easily readable by lazy
people like myself, who don't want to set up a board.-a Or while traveling.

There's not too much here aside from the above, though the story of
Horowitz and the Professional Rook Odds Player is almost worth the price
of the book itself.

I read this book as a teen, and it perverted and distorted my chess
style for all time. I will be forever grateful.

William Hyde

The authors try to come up with a taxonomy of traps, pitfalls, and
swindles, but it doesn't make much sense, and later in the book they
call such things "gimmicks".

Of these, pitfalls are my favorite. About a thousand times I advance a
pawn that threatens a pawn or a piece, but the real reason is what
moving that pawn clears a path for on the board. For example discovery
check and discovered attack fall under this header.
--
Wo sind Sie?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 17:57:59 -0500, Mandrake the Praetorian
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:

The authors try to come up with a taxonomy of traps, pitfalls, and
swindles, but it doesn't make much sense, and later in the book they
call such things "gimmicks".

Of these, pitfalls are my favorite. About a thousand times I advance a
pawn that threatens a pawn or a piece, but the real reason is what
moving that pawn clears a path for on the board. For example discovery >check and discovered attack fall under this header.

So what term would you use towards a position where one player with
best play is objectively lost and that player deliberately complicates
to make it easier for his opponent to go wrong? (Knowing full well
that if the opponent DOESN'T go wrong he's probably winning)

My point is that many blunders do not come out of thin air but are
engineered.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 17:57:59 -0500, Mandrake the Praetorian <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:

The authors try to come up with a taxonomy of traps, pitfalls, and
swindles, but it doesn't make much sense, and later in the book they
call such things "gimmicks".

Of these, pitfalls are my favorite. About a thousand times I advance a
pawn that threatens a pawn or a piece, but the real reason is what
moving that pawn clears a path for on the board. For example discovery
check and discovered attack fall under this header.

So what term would you use towards a position where one player with
best play is objectively lost and that player deliberately complicates
to make it easier for his opponent to go wrong? (Knowing full well
that if the opponent DOESN'T go wrong he's probably winning)

My point is that many blunders do not come out of thin air but are engineered.

Isn't that called a swindle?

I don't often win games where I am -5 material.
--
What can I say to have you at es?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 00:49:00 -0500, Mandrake the Perihelion <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:

What can I say to have you at es?

What's "es"?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 00:49:00 -0500, Mandrake the Perihelion <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:

What can I say to have you at es?

What's "es"?

es? is a CIA coverup of an esp operation.
--
What can I say to have you at es?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 17:57:59 -0500, Mandrake the Praetorian <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:

The authors try to come up with a taxonomy of traps, pitfalls, and
swindles, but it doesn't make much sense, and later in the book they
call such things "gimmicks".

Of these, pitfalls are my favorite. About a thousand times I advance a
pawn that threatens a pawn or a piece, but the real reason is what
moving that pawn clears a path for on the board. For example discovery
check and discovered attack fall under this header.

So what term would you use towards a position where one player with
best play is objectively lost and that player deliberately complicates
to make it easier for his opponent to go wrong? (Knowing full well
that if the opponent DOESN'T go wrong he's probably winning)

That's just good play. A swindle is a special case of this in which the complications have a particular tactical point which the opponent may
fall for.

When to try for a swindle, when to complicate without any specific
point, and when to defend stoutly? Difficult questions, depending on
the skill of your opponent vis a vis just how lost your game is. The
clock is also a factor.

If my opponent is no great shakes at endgames, then stout defense might
be called for when a pawn down. On the other hand if I'm facing an
endgame expert, I would try to complicate in the middle game.

If I'm just dead lost, I've no problem going for a swindle that will
lose even faster if it is seen through.

My point is that many blunders do not come out of thin air but are engineered.

Yes. Pitfalls are engineered, to a degree, and a swindle is just a
pitfall in a losing position.

Other blunders, though, are simple miscalculations, which are more
likely to come about in a complicated position.

But the best way to lose a won position is to move quickly so as not to
allow the opponent to "think on your time". Some strong players will,
when lost against a weaker opponent, deliberately get into time pressure
to provoke this behaviour.


William Hyde

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc



On Wed, 9 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:

Years ago this old book by Reinfeld and Horowitz was discussed here, meeting with much disapprobation.

Thank you very much. I will have a look!
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2