Does z00t know nothing

Teenage IM Alex Lenderman plays the Smith-Morra as his primary line against the Sicilian.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Now, dear z00t, can you produce real evidence to support your stand or withdraw and concede that these "mickey mouse" openings are indeed playable at the very highest level.

Seems like z00t have failed again 😀

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
... the Morra Gambit was and is used as a surprise weapon by strong players such as Adams, Chandler, Minasian and Illescas and by greats of the past such as Bobby Fisher and Matulovic.

Talking about greats of the past I would add Tartakower, Bronstein (who also did play Kings gambit - other "mikey mouse" opening according to z00troll) and Ivkov.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Ok z00t, I agree DF shouldn't really try to score points by airing PM's in public forums.

By way of interest, I give the line in the Morra which Silman & Gallagher suggest as a possible refutation to the gambit & one which any serious Morra gambiteer should know from both sides:

1.e4...c5
2.d4...cxd4
3.c3...dxc3
4.Nxc3...Nc6
5.Nf3...d6
6.B or certain lines of the Scotch after Kasparov decided to dust them off & win with them!

After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6! 7.Bg5!? black may play 7...Nf6 with e6 to follow. If 8.e5 then 8....dxe5! 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Bxf7 e6 11.0-0-0 Kc7 with slightly better position.

In my opinion 7.0-0 (with Qe2,Bd1,Bf4 to follow) is better.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Teenage IM Alex Lenderman plays the Smith-Morra as his primary line against the Sicilian.

He has 3 Morra videos here:

http://www.chessclub.com/bits/webcast/Manest/SmithMorra/part1/manest_Smith_Morra_part1.html

Originally posted by z00t
The article says "IM Ben Finegold was brought into the project to provide analytic support and positional evaluations. The authors also enlisted the help of other strong players, including FM Fred Lindsay, IM Jack Peters, and GM Dmitry Gurevich".

If that does not convince anyone the earlier statements are self-explanatory The fact that there is so y and practice on this line or given the lack of higher level contests with the gambit.

It should be assumed that we can all read and write in good English so the above statements still stand.

Squealbelch your analysis is self-serving

1.e4...c5
2.d4...cxd4
3.c3...dxc3
4.Nxc3...Nc6
5.Nf3...d6
6.Bc4...a6??

6..a6 deserves a question mark not a !

Originally posted by Korch
As you are have problems to read what I have wrote I`ll give you one more chance to read main questions:

[b]Did you search in databases to be sure that there are no
IMs and GMs who uses Smith-Morra gambit?

Does the fact that Smith-Morra is not so popular as other Sicilian lines means that it is unsound? Have you read discussion in [threadid]70577[/thre ...[text shortened]... ] where statements like that were refuted?

Can you show refutation of Smith-Morra gambit?[/b]

I agree with z00t. I mean we can all agree that the first tempo as white is almost irrelevant in games, and that all games should, technically, be drawn, since having the first move is like drawing first in a card game, it's not decisive.

So then, in the Morra Gambit, you automatically sacrifice a pawn, a central pawn. For what, if not just another extra tempo? Being up two tempos as white is NOT going to win a game. In fact, you can take two tempos without having an extra pawn and it still won't be decisive.

The only reason the Morra Gambit has some wins as white (I remind you the % is less than 50), is because of two reasons. One is that the white players that play the Morra Gambit (very very few at the high levels, and probably only occasially), do extensive preparation, and uncover some traps and memorize lines and dig up a few tricky novelties, that occasionally actually work against a Grandmaster, can you believe that? Another reason is that sometimes the white player is higher rated, and he just by chance is playing the Gambit against a lower rated opponent, and he wins. No surprises there.

Meanwhile, Korch, your debate tactics are mediocre at best. First of all, bolding your sentences isn't going to make your argument any more believeable, buddy, and it's an eyesore. Meanwhile, you try to make your side of the point seem almost obvious, when you're the one that's incorrect.

First bolded statement. Did z00t say that no GMS or IMs play the gambit? No. So you're exaggering his correct comments and distorting his words, which are written for everyone to see here. Yes, there are IMs and GMs who use the Gambit. There are also games that played 1. h4 and 1. a4

Second statement. This depends on what you mean by "unsound". If you mean "unsound" by it's a forced loss, then no, the Smith-Morra is not unsound, and either is 1. h4. If you mean it's a completely illogical opening, giving up a pawn, played by overambitious club players looking to surprise their opponents with a few cheap tricks and SHOULD lose, then yes, it is unsound.

Third, is probably the most illogical and completely outrageous statement, though superficially logical to the inexperienced chessplayer. There is not refutation for anything. Like I said before, let's see you show a refutation for 1. a4.
What is a refutation anyway? Do you want me to show you a 50 move deep main line with thousands of variations and millions of subvariations, leading to a king and pawn endgame that is won for black? If so, it's not possible. Do you want me to tell you that after 4...e6 (what I like), that the position is a -+?

"And if you did not read I may repeat you again "not popular" and "unsound" are not the same"

Well, if Grandmasters know enough to avoid an opening that you defend, and scores very lowly against other Grandmasters and IMs, even with preparation, it's not unsound? Maybe they don't like the Morra Gambit because it's too hard to pronounce? You tell me. Who are we going to listen to here, GMs, or some amateurs who play on an obscure online CC site?

And for your information, since you so avidly worship your databases, I see more games registered with the Orangutan or 1. e3, 1.d3, than the Morra Gambit. In addition, 1.h4 scores a surprising 68% for white. Maybe we should all be playing that.

Originally posted by z00t
6..a6 deserves a question mark not a !

This shows you don't know the basics of the opening, nor the reputation for this line itself.

The line is the most often used "refutation" against the Morra.
Show me a better black defence then, or remain a worthless troll.

My buddy Alex Lenderman would clown on any of you guys with smith mora. Zoot knows nothing. He told me it is one of his favorite openings

I punched the first 4 moves into Chessbase 9 and checked what it had to say:

In the Elite database (best players): 0 games
In the Guru database: 564 games, and it looks like many of them are in junior events.
In the Opening database: 3 games.

Overall score: +164 =117 -213

There were some big names among the folks who played it, but not too many, and certainly not anyone like Ivkov making it their go-to defense.

I don't understand why Zoot is wrong when he says that its a fine opening for players like us, but it's not represented highly among very good players.

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
I agree with z00t. I mean we can all agree that the first tempo as white is almost irrelevant in games, and that all games should, technically, be drawn, since having the first move is like drawing first in a card game, it's not decisive.

So then, in the Morra Gambit, you automatically sacrifice a pawn, a central pawn. For what, if not just another ex scores a surprising 68% for white. Maybe we should all be playing that.

The only reason the Morra Gambit has some wins as white (I remind you the % is less than 50), is because of two reasons. One is that the white players that play the Morra Gambit (very very few at the high levels, and probably only occasially), do extensive preparation, and uncover some traps and memorize lines and dig up a few tricky novelties, that occasionally actually work against a Grandmaster, can you believe that? Another reason is that sometimes the white player is higher rated, and he just by chance is playing the Gambit against a lower rated opponent, and he wins. No surprises there.

Have you looked at games played with this opening to make such categoric claim?

Meanwhile, Korch, your debate tactics are mediocre at best. First of all, bolding your sentences isn't going to make your argument any more believeable, buddy, and it's an eyesore. Meanwhile, you try to make your side of the point seem almost obvious, when you're the one that's incorrect.

Just a words

First bolded statement. Did z00t say that no GMS or IMs play the gambit? No. So you're exaggering his correct comments and distorting his words, which are written for everyone to see here. Yes, there are IMs and GMs who use the Gambit. There are also games that played 1. h4 and 1. a4

Pure demagogy. Show me more some IM or GM games started with 1.h4 or 1.a4 (if its not simul).

Second statement. This depends on what you mean by "unsound". If you mean "unsound" by it's a forced loss, then no, the Smith-Morra is not unsound, and either is 1. h4. If you mean it's a completely illogical opening, giving up a pawn, played by overambitious club players looking to surprise their opponents with a few cheap tricks and SHOULD lose, then yes, it is unsound.

You have the same problem as z00t - you have problems to prove (with particular lines) that black can get more than equal game. If you can do that - then i would agree that this gambit is unsound. If you can`t - shut up until you wont be able to do that.

Third, is probably the most illogical and completely outrageous statement, though superficially logical to the inexperienced chessplayer. There is not refutation for anything. Like I said before, let's see you show a refutation for 1. a4.

In first move white can afford all they want but starting from second move they must think what are they doing. For example Blackmar-Diemer gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4?!) is refuted, If you want I can show ir (I have posted it in one of my previous posts some time ago). So statement "There is not refutation for anything." is BS.

What is a refutation anyway? Do you want me to show you a 50 move deep main line with thousands of variations and millions of subvariations, leading to a king and pawn endgame that is won for black? If so, it's not possible. Do you want me to tell you that after 4...e6 (what I like), that the position is a -+?

If you want to refute Smith-Morra gambit, then you must show how black can get better play. Showing one move like 4...e6 proves nothing - you will have to show longer lines which leads to sure advantage.

Well, if Grandmasters know enough to avoid an opening that you defend, and scores very lowly against other Grandmasters and IMs, even with preparation, it's not unsound?

According to Morozevich (in interview to e3 e5.com some time ago) it proves nothing. Also in the end of Thread 70577 there are opinion of some of the best RHP players who disagrees with you.

And for your information, since you so avidly worship your databases, I see more games registered with the Orangutan or 1. e3, 1.d3, than the Morra Gambit. In addition, 1.h4 scores a surprising 68% for white. Maybe we should all be playing that.

Cheap demagogy. How does it prove that Smith-Morra is unsound?

Originally posted by wargamer66
I punched the first 4 moves into Chessbase 9 and checked what it had to say:

In the Elite database (best players): 0 games
In the Guru database: 564 games, and it looks like many of them are in junior events.
In the Opening database: 3 games.

Overall score: +164 =117 -213

There were some big names among the folks who played it, but not too m s a fine opening for players like us, but it's not represented highly among very good players.

Check also other databases. www.chesslive.de, www.chesslab.com and www.chessgames.com for example.

In Beating the Anti-Sicilians by Joe Gagllagher he says this about the Morra,

"White sacrifices a pawn in order to achieve a lead in development and possibly some pressure on the c-file. This line is much more popular (and dangerous) at club, rather than master, level where there is probably more respect for a central pawn."

I'll be sending you a bill, Zoot.

Originally posted by wargamer66
In Beating the Anti-Sicilians by Joe Gagllagher he says this about the Morra,

"White sacrifices a pawn in order to achieve a lead in development and possibly some pressure on the c-file. This line is much more popular (and dangerous) at club, rather than master, level where there is probably more respect for a central pawn."

I'll be sending you a bill, Zoot.

What line does GM Gallagher suggest against the Morra?

p.s
Gallagher is a strong supporter of another of z00t's "Mickey Mouse" openings - the King's Gambit!
😀

Originally posted by Korch
Check also other databases. www.chesslive.de, www.chesslab.com and www.chessgames.com for example.

But I don't really want to. It's sort of a side-line opening that you guys are saying is played all the time, which I know is not true. I'll let you waste your time instead 🙂