I like a good stramash in the Forum as well as the next man
but honestly there is no malice.
I come back at you (or anyone) with a point of view.
You can disagree and sometimes (very rarely)
I do change my mind
Setting traps is bad Chess, it's Hope Chess. But it is Chess.
If it works then good but it can get you into trouble.
I know the word 'trap' is used in all kinds of situations by all kinds of players
from Grandmaster to beginner but I think my clasification of it helps you
to understand the game a bit better.
A genuine trap is playing a move you know not to be the best move
hoping your opponent will blunder and fall into what ever trick it masks.
It is a bad move that has no other reason than to tempt your opponent
into a blunder.
There has to be a element of risk knowing that it will rebound if the opponent
spots the trap.
If you want to use the word 'Trap' then I offer two classes of trap.
A genuine trap and an incidental trap. (or better...an incidental trick.)
The first two links you gave were posted by a couple of punters from chess.com
You cannot going around posting yourself as 'The Instructor' if you are
going to link to punters from chess.com. Call yourself 'The Linker'.
In the first link you gave the opening statement is:
"Here is a trap for white in the Queen's Gambit accepted version
caused by a bad move by black."
The key bit is ".....caused by a bad move by black."
White did nothing wrong, his play was sound, Black played a bad move
and White punished him. If Black had sided-stepped the trap no harm done.
That trap is an Incidental Trap.
The second link spells Tarrasch 'Taarasch' and gives the same line of play.
It is not a trap
The two variations of the Tarrasch Trap that bear his name are in the
Ruy Lopez and are both incidental.
That means the blunder was made by Black, White did not harm his
position in anyway at all playing the moves he did. There just happened
to be a cute line of tactical play in White's favour because Black blundered.
The DVD gave the same line as above and called it a worth while trap.
Worth while to know yes. (The RHP stats prove that.) a trap no.
Let us see what The Oxford Companion to Chess
has to say about a trap.
They state there is no precise definition of a trap adding that
many masters would not class an incidental trap as a trap.
They call a move that I call a genuine trap (a risky bad move that works) a swindle.
A swindle to me is when you are lost and you set a trap that your opponent
falls into and you spin the game around.
Swindles differ from a genuine trap because when swindling the damage
has already been done. You are trying to get back into the game.
A genuine trap is the damage that can give you a lost game.
Indeed when the The Oxford Companion comes around to defining 'Swindle'
it agress with me.
"A trap by means of which a player who has a lost position avoids defeat."
(The Companion appears to be arguing with itself.)
In the so called trap mentioned above White is not in a lost position
nor is he setting traps. His opponent is blundering.
By the same criteria we should be calling this a trap after: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
Black has set White a trap. If 4.Nxe5 then 4...Nxe5.
The famous Elephant Trap is not a trap.
This is a genuine trap in the same setting.
And this is the most outrageous Opening Trap I have ever seen on RHP
(or anywhere else for that matter) It's brilliant.
It fits the bill perfectly.
From a safe and solid equal position a player takes a chance on wrecking
it all by setting a genuine trap.
Prefect - neldo RHP 2003 Game 330002