HI paulbuchmanfromfics

Hi Paul.

"That's very similar to the cheap trap (2. ... c6) in the Trompowsky. "

I've pulled this answer out of that other thread. It's another one that has gone haywire.
Let's try and get one thread going that stays on Chess. (at least for a little while.)

I would not call the trap in the Trompowsky ‘cheap’.
No such thing as a cheap trap unless you can show me an expensive one. 🙂
I’d call it a trick (a trap that just happens to be there.)

The Tromp Trick.


Black has just played 2…c6 hoping for 3.e3 Qa5+ picking up the g5 Bishop.

…..has been tried 51 times RHP and has caught only one victim.

In lesstaire6 - the woodchopper RHP 2007 Game 3769391
Black had the chance to nick the g5 Bishop but played 3…Qb6 instead.


The magic lure of the b-pawn being more important than winning the Bishop.
Black went on to lose.

The one success was mkupper - petromichelaki RHP 2008 Game 5691345
Black did indeed play 3…Qa5+ winning the g5 Bishop and then went onto lose! 🙂
(so on here the record for this one is even worse that The Duck’s 0% trap.)

The Combe Trick.
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e5 4.Nxe5 Qa5+


Has caught 37 players on RHP. The player davaniel has two victims tucked under his belt.

You could also call this move order 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3


The Morphy Trick, it is how he often played against the Sicilian.
The idea being, as happened in a few games, Black would play 3….e5 hoping
that Morphy would grab the e-pawn (he never did.)
It’s a kind of Positional Trick. Morphy tricks the guy into the type of position Morphy wants.
Morphy tempts Black into playing for a trap.
But after 3…e5 4.Bc4.


Morphy has the basic e4-e5 structure which he loved with c3 to follow.

It’s a wonder Morphy never stumbled upon the 3.c3 idea and the Morra Gambit, the
true strength of that move was analysed the 1930/40’s. Though Blackburne
dabbled with it in the 1870’s long after PCM stopped playing.

But to be honest PCM was not a trail blazer in gambit research, he just took
what was then known and refined it into mini works of art.
Few variations bear his name, why he got 3…a6 in the Lopez is beyond me.

Some sources do give Morphy’s name to the Morra Gambit but PCM only
played c3 after the e4 e5 structure.
(It’s like saying Morphy would have played The Morra Gambit had he known about it!)

34 of the 37 RHP games have been Black wins, here is a White win.
After winning the piece the Black pieces get into each others way and
soon retreat back to their original squares.
White picks up the Black Queen with a trick similar to the Kasparov - West
game I posted a few days ago.

thespacemonkey - KING OF EGYPT RHP 2006



The Kasparov Game

Kasparov - West Telechess Olympiad 1977.

Originally posted by greenpawn34

thespacemonkey - KING OF EGYPT RHP 2006

Our old friend the KING OF EGYPT. This is what happens when you're used to beating yourself in 4 moves. Complacency creeps in.

HI thaughbaer,

Of course I've stumbled upon the King of Egypt v The Prince of Egypt v
The Lord of Egypt games etc...
The Lord of Egypt was eventually banned the other two just drifted away.

I just say 2. ...c6 is cheap because after 3.Bxf6, black's position is nothing to write home about. In the gxf6 varations, black usually goes for c5. The exf6 (with later d5) variations are playable but very stodgy.

Here's a few other Qa5 wins a bishop tricks:



That one was on e5 though ... back to c5.

Reverse colors here:



There's something about moving the c1 bishop out and playing e3 that draws traps ...



Back To Morphy's Idea:

He was brilliant at repeatedly getting the initiative out of his openings. Admittedly, it takes a certain level of player to give you an attack every time, but it likewise takes a genius to find it. It's not Morphy's fault he was way ahead of his time.

I've been looking for another example, but I can't remember where I read it. Do you know of the variation perhaps in the Scotch Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4) where Morphy improved black's play? White has a combo in there with Bxf7+ and Qh5+xc5. Morphy simply allowed the combo and took a huge lead in development with black. I'll try to find it, because it also illustrates Morphy's improvements on existing theory.

More Later ... The lunch bell is ringing.

Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
I just say 2. ...c6 is cheap because after 3.Bxf6, black's position is nothing to write home about. In the gxf6 varations, black usually goes for c5. The exf6 (with later d5) variations are playable but very stodgy.

Here's a few other Qa5 wins a bishop tricks:

[pgn]1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.Bf4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Bxe5 Qa5+[/pgn]

That one was o phy's improvements on existing theory.

More Later ... The lunch bell is ringing.

Nh6 may be what I was remembering (or misremembering):




I don't remember the book where I read this. Maybe, someone can help on that?

Hi Paul,

The White ‘attack’ does look good and tempting but theory and analyse
leads it nowhere.


However at the lower levels there is a strong possibility it will succeed through
Black not defending properly or missing a trick against their exposed King.
The position can be classed as equal, even favouring Black but if Black
is not up to the challenge of accepting such a position then things can go wrong.

A common practical error, players following theory from GM games then getting
dropped into a position that a GM can play but they cannot.
They battle on, get outplayed, don’t fall for nothing tactical in the middle game
and are dragged into a lost ending.

“Where did I go wrong and what is the solution?”

Cannot be the opening to early middle game, that came from a GM.
Must have been the ending, so they buy yet another endgame book.

I have 21 games from the above position on the RHP 1400 DB
White wins = 15 Draw =2 Black wins = 4.

djh486 - marvol RHP Game 5356888 is a good example of a Black
player walking into a simple trick based on his King being exposed.

Final Position


Black resigned, he is losing a piece. Not a Queen.
After 15...Bf5 the e-pawn is pinned.
White can break the pin with a check 16.Qc4+ (that exposed King again).
16...Qe6 and it's just a piece that is lost.

djh486 by the way has played this as White 9 times. 6 wins and 2 losses.

I'm not saying it's any good but it does present the Black lower table player
with practical problems. They appear not to be sure if they should be playing
for an attack or to hold their position together.
Also they fail to take care of their King and think after the early firworks
the tactics are over.

mlynco2 - guyaerts RHP 2009
A nice example of what I am talking about.
The tactician comes up trumps again.

One of my favorite old lines of the BDG went like this:



At one time, this variation received thorough examination by all the afficianados (Gunderam and Diemer included).

Has 8.gxf5 Qh4+ occured in any redhotpawn games?

I'd also like to know the under 1800 rated results for this:

(Wilkes-Barre)




One More!

It's getting that time of year, so let's see a dashing Halloween Gambit from the RHP archives!



These variations should lead to some wildly entertaining games.
Let's see what you can come up with, if you have the time.

Hi Paul.

We can of course continue this in Bates Motel.
You and me are the only ones there. (It’s closed for repairs.)
I, as you can see, use it for storing blog ideas, cartoons, games…

That line in the Blackmar has only produced two games but
my RHP DB is now out of date.

Here are the two games. Not very good examples I’m afraid
Black never took advantage of the exposed White King in either case.

Phillidor284 - gbsalvio RHP 2005



saffa73 - mathemos RHP 2004
And here…Well look at Black’s 9th move and White’s reply..



Wilkes Barre: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5


Played 791 White wins = 331 Drawn = 60 Black wins = 400

Under 25 moves which I think gives a fairer balance regarding an openings stats.
played 492 White wins = 185 Drawn = 29 Black wins = 278

Splitting the two critical White choices. 5.Nxf7 and 6.Bxf7+

5.Nxf7 (still 25 moves or under)


Played 313 White wins = 100 D.6 Black wins = 197

Bxf7+ (still 25 moves or under)


Played 151 White wins 72 Drawn =0(!) Black wins 72
A nice case of even Stevens.

The Halloween Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5


Played 330 White wins = 167 Drawn = 24 Black wins = 139

Under 25 moves.

Played White wins = 91 Drawn = 5 Black wins = 52

The Halloween hides this variation.

I guess the lack of games in the BDG line isn't surprising. If you know the theory to get in, you know the theory to get out. 8.Bb5+ ! avoids all the black tactics.

Black wins more games in the Wilkes-Barre! That's one more against Ng5 ( " a duffer's move" ) .

Another shocker was the Nxf7 line. I knew the exchange grab could be dangerous, but black wins 2 to 1 almost! I remember watching two friends of mine go at it in the Nxf7 Bxf2 line years ago. Black was rated about 1000, and white was 1800. Black had so many tactics (and missed them) that it made my head spin! Black did do considerably well, however, and forced a perpetual check. The white king kept getting checked on a3 and b3 (and back and forth).

Even the "refutation" Bxf7 breaks even! The Wilkes-Barre is a dangerous weapon at the amateur level!

They should start another thematic with it and make the maximum rating well under 1800. I'd like to see that.

It's a shame the pros don't do thematics. The only two I can remember are the Polugaevsky cup where they all had to play the Sicilian and the Rice Gambit tournament.

I'd like to see Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen, and such play a Rice Gambit thematic!

Hi Paul.

"Duffers Move" everyone quotes Tarrasch when they note up 4.Ng5.
But did Tarrasch says that?

"ein richtiger Stümperzug" is his exact quote, does that translate to 'Duffers Move?'

Anyway here is what may be The Evergreen Wilkes Barre

E.Reichmann - H.Ullrich Berlin 1961


Final Position. Beautiful.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paul.

"Duffers Move" everyone quotes Tarrasch when they note up 4.Ng5.
But did Tarrasch says that?

"ein richtiger Stümperzug" is his exact quote, does that translate to 'Duffers Move?'

Anyway here is what may be The Evergreen Wilkes Barre

[b]E.Reichmann - H.Ullrich Berlin 1961

[fen]2k4N/ppp3pp/8/3Pp3/6P1/N5P1/PPPP1n2/R1BKQrnR w - - ...[text shortened]... . Ke1 Ne4 14. Qe3 Qh4+ 15. g3 Qg4 16. h3 Nf3+ 17. Kd1 Ng1+ 18. hxg4 Rf1+ 19. Qe1 Nf2[/pgn][/b]

When you deliver the goods, you REALLY deliver the goods. That's an outstanding game! I'll bet it's in one of my books, but just to be safe, I'm printing it out. This one MUST be seen with a real board and pieces!

The final position has everything you could ever ask for.


The only two developed White pieces are right out of play on their
traditional worst squares.
The White King and Queen have switched thrones.
Black is down a Queen, a Rook and a Bishop and all three of the Black
pieces are playing their part in mating the King.

It's the kind of final position you would get tattooed on your chest so when
people are discussing their best games you can rip open your shirt in
Superman style and say; "Look what I did!"

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paul.

"Duffers Move" everyone quotes Tarrasch when they note up 4.Ng5.
But did Tarrasch says that?

"ein richtiger Stümperzug" is his exact quote, does that translate to 'Duffers Move?'

Anyway here is what may be The Evergreen Wilkes Barre

[b]E.Reichmann - H.Ullrich Berlin 1961

[fen]2k4N/ppp3pp/8/3Pp3/6P1/N5P1/PPPP1n2/R1BKQrnR w - - ...[text shortened]... . Ke1 Ne4 14. Qe3 Qh4+ 15. g3 Qg4 16. h3 Nf3+ 17. Kd1 Ng1+ 18. hxg4 Rf1+ 19. Qe1 Nf2[/pgn][/b]

I have just started playing 1. ... e5, and I am going to remember this one!

I just finished this one, but it has a big flaw in it.



The flaw is that after 15.cxd4, I don't get the attack I need.