The May 1999 issue of British Chess Magazine contained a book review of my book, 700 Opening Traps, published by Chess Enterprises in 1998. The review was done by Tim Wall. Here is the review of my book, followed by my response.
The definition of a trap should probably include plausibility somewhere. However, this slim volume - filled out with the author's Internet games - doesn't seem to draw a line between a legitimate trap (such as the ones given in Gary Lane's instructive Victory in the Opening, reviewed here last month) and downright silliness. On 'Basman's Defence' we are advised 'one needs to be careful of a few traps'. The first example? Why, it's that tricky line 1 e4 g5 2 Nc3 f5?? 3 Qh5 mate (Mayfield-Trinks, Omaha 1959). Ah, I must watch out for that one, next time I'm tempted to move nt g- and f-pawns in quick succession. Similarly, the quick smothered mate seems to have a special fascination for my favorite namesake, e.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Ne7 3 Nd5 Rg8 4 Bc4 (be careful, now) 4...g6?? (oops) 5 Nf6 mate (Bukavec-Koziskova, Kostelec 1950). Then there's the hoary old standby Gibaud-Lazard, Paris 1924, the so-called 'shortest master game ever'. Some people have questioned its veracity, but it certainly didn't happen the way Bill Wall describes: "1 d4 Nf6 2 Nd2 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 h3?? Ne3 (threatening the queen) 5 fxe3 Qh4 mate [sic]." Any more books like this, and I'm off to change my surnmae by deed poll.
Well, I appreciate Tim Wall's review. And I like his humor. And he has a such a good last name. Now let me try to respond to the review in my humorous way.
I first looked up the definition of trap and didn't see the word plausible. Instead I got: a trick for catching a person unawares; catch by stratagem, artifiace, or trickery; pitfall; the scheme of one person to take another by surprise and gain an advantage from him. Sorry. Nothing plausible there. Next, I looked up plausible and got: having an appearance of truth or reason. well, all the chess moves are legal. I did not make up any game. I found every game in another source, so another editor thought it was a real game and published it, even if it was for entertainment value and not meant to be taken seriously by grandmasters. I really believe every game and trap is plausible and that someone in the world has already fallen for the trap and lost, or will do so if they never study chess seriously.
OK, the book is slim (and cheap in cost). It is 108 pages with the index of over 1,000 players. I guess I could have doubled the size and double the cost, but all my other 26 books are about the same size and same price and my publisher and myself like that format.
Perhaps Tim Wall doesn't like Internet games (good source for traps). And I don't think I filled it out with Internet games. Less than 10 percent of the total number of games and traps are my Internet games. He didn't mention I also had tournament games from California, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, Guam, Okinawa, and Thailand from the 1960s to 1998 also included, including losses. I hope Tim Wall publishes his shortest games, no matter how bad they seem to him. I am sure he has won dozens of games under 20 moves and has perhaps lost a few under 20 moves as well.
I guess I need to know the definition of legitimate trap so I can title my next book, 700 Legitimate Opening Traps, Volume II. Then with the rest of the games that didn't make it in this volume, I can write 700 Silly Opening Traps. And lets prevent those editors from publishing these silly traps in the first place.
I looked at my book and I don't have a chapter called Basman's Defence. I am not British and did not write for a British publisher. It's Basman's Defense. We spell it different (perhaps wrong), but we know if it is a British author or not by the spelling. Tim Wall is British. Bill Wall is American (or as Jeremy Bibuld would say, 'United Statesian'). OK, the first game on the page which contains Basman's Defense (1.e4 g5), I do have a 3 move mate that was actually played. But I did include 8 games, including one of Michael Basman's win in 16 moves in England. Some games win for White, some for Black. My games were arranged from shortest to longest, so the first game will be a short 3 mover if played.
Quick smothered mates have no special fascination with me. But they must be popular with other chess editors who include short games that end in a smothered mate all the time.
Yes, I am aware of the controversy of the Gibauld-Lazard game and I admit the typo of saying mate (5...Qh4 mate) instead of mate in 1 (after 6.g3 Qxg3 mate). It could have been played by these two, or it could have been played by other players before or since this French game.
Overall, the review was fair and it gave thousands of BCM readers exposure to just another chess book written for entertainment and not for the experienced master. Tim, if you have any short games I'll add them to my database and include them in a future book. No need to change your surname by deed poll. Our Wall ancestors helped William the Conquerer and was instrumental in the victory at Hastings in 1066 and perhaps introduced chess to the local community. I am sure it was trap. The first chess trap.