Re: The "swap rule" in chess...

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David J Bush) wrote:

> >  Furthermore, chess at a high level has never been about traps, so it 
> > seems likely that the trappy variations you hypothesize would only be an 
> > issue among weak amateurs, who, honestly, make enough mistakes that the 
> > advantage of the first move means less.
> 
> I guess it depends on what you mean by "trap." It seems you regard a trap
> as something high level players don't use between themselves. My latest
> issue of New in Chess (2003 nr. 6) features an exciting game between
> Viswanathan Anand and Viktor Bologan. Anand sprang an opening novelty which
> he had prepared last year, which led to his victory over Bologan. I would
> call that novelty a high-level trap. You can call it whatever you like.


I think there's a difference between the typical opening trap (a 
tactical shot that's a standard part of the opening that might be missed 
by someone not familiar with the opening) and a theoretical novelty, 
that is, a well-prepared new line of an opening (for which the person 
playing it has studied well but which the opponent must work out over 
the board).

I think that the former (traps) are rarely fallen for in GM games, while 
the letter (theoretical novelties) can be a big part of GM chess. I'd 
prefer to think of those as separate things.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
 and party every day.
 Then it was every other day. . . ."
      -Homer J. Simpson