Originally posted by Dragon FireCan I send you a Smith-Morra? You play white I play black. Just to test out a few ideas.
Maybe not the best example but a typical example of how black often falls apart when faced with a gambit by white which only goes to prove the validity of the gambit.
So far I have seen a lot of stuff (from Morra players) showing how playable the gambit is but nothing showing any refutation by black.
I think those of us that believe the Morra Gambit to be a useful tool in whites armoury have won the debate.
I too think that the Smith-Morra is a very valuable weapon for white agains the Sicilian. That's why I want to play against it in CC and not get clubbered on OTB.
Originally posted by KorchAs I said before, all the people knocking the gambit have yet to come up with any sort of defence for black.
....because opponents could not show particular lines which refute this gambit.
Only supporters of the gambit - who understand how complex the positions that can arise are - are prepared to offer unbiased analysis for both white & black.
Like a black player in a Morra game, it seems the critics are always on the defensive...
Originally posted by SquelchbelchBesides zoot I don't think nobody is really badmouthing the gambit. I already said that it was pretty fun and risky for both sides. I guess that saying as much that the positions are very complex.
As I said before, all the people knocking the gambit have yet to come up with any sort of defence for black.
Only supporters of the gambit - who understand how complex the positions that can arise are - are prepared to offer unbiased analysis for both white & black.
Like a black player in a Morra game, it seems the critics are always on the defensive...
I have not yet read all the different arguments in this thread, nor do I claim to be an expert on this or any other aspect of chess. But I do happen to have a recently checked out library copy of "Winning with the Smith-Morra Gambit" (1994) by Graham Burgess sitting here on my desk, and thought what he had to say on the matter might be interesting to anyone following this discussion. The following three paragraphs are from the introduction, as best as I can type it anyway. The weird spelling of the words skeptical, neutralized, favor, etc are his. Enjoy...
"Many players are sceptical about the merits of the Gambit, however, feeling that although Black can easily fall under a strong attack, White's initiative can be neutralised with accurate play. As a result, many players for whom the Gambit would be an ideal attacking weapon simply do not bother to investigate it in any detail. I believe that a careful study of the material presented in this book will show that there is no 'perfect' defence, and that at some point Black will always have to make some awkward decisions, i.e. whether to return some material, or make positional concessions. Naturally, Black has a number of reasonable defences, but nothing that denies White compensation, or leads to forced, drawish simplifications. To be honest, as a relatively recent convert to the Smith-Morra gambit, I have been surprised just how good White's chances are, and would be prepared to offer the gambit against anyone, but as Black would feel rather uneasy!
There are good practical arguments if favour of playing the Smith-Morra as White. Firstly, because it is not a popular opening, especially at Grandmaster level, very few players will have devoted much time to studying a good defence. Sicilian players of all levels typically devour detailed opening theory from recent GM practice in the main lines, but perhaps neglect the supposedly harmless side-lines. The player with White, on the other hand, is playing a line he can expect in about a quarter of his games of chess, so should be familiar with many of the tactical nuances. This makes a good deal more sense than trying to keep up with the theory of the main line Sicilian, especially for non-professionals, when a well- prepared opponent will in any case know their own particular favourite variation inside-out.
A psychological reason for playing the Smith-Morra is also pertinent. By playing the Sicilian, Black is trying to insist on his fair share of the initiative. Black accepts that his own king may come under fire, but on the condition that the White king will not be comfortable either. Instead in the Smith-Morra White will still fiercely target the black king, but in return for this, rather than active counterplay, Black has the task of using an extra pawn to try to blunt White's initiative."
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe spelling used by Burgess is not weird, it is English as we spell it.
I have not yet read all the different arguments in this thread, nor do I claim to be an expert on this or any other aspect of chess. But I do happen to have a recently checked out library copy of "Winning with the Smith-Morra Gambit" (1994) by Graham Burgess sitting here on my desk, and thought what he had to say on the matter might be interesting to anyo ...[text shortened]... terplay, Black has the task of using an extra pawn to try to blunt White's initiative."
It is I am afraid your spelling that is weird being English as the Americans spell it, i.e. incorrectly. 😉
Just checked the game colony site. The stats--most of the games at high level with Mora are
34% wins 44% losses 22% draws
At he Chessbase site, the highest rated player using Morra was low 2500's (like Vallejo Pons). I checked all the games of the 2500 players. Using the morra, all were playing lower players who had black (one as low as 1900) , which suggest to me they were trying to steamroll them. Anybody who plays the Morra against a correspondence opponent who has database available is going to have trouble. Over the board would be a different matter. At our level all openings are good OTB.
Be careful of recommendations by authors of opening books for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by buddy2I strongly disagree, simply because many of the 0-1 or 1/2 1/2 results contain early mistakes by white where he simply mis-plays the moves by playing on Morra autopilot regardless of the black defence.
...Anybody who plays the Morra against a correspondence opponent who has database available is going to have trouble....
Many of the database losses will contain early white moves like a3 or h3 which are almost entirely out of place prophylactic moves in a Morra game.
Just because the opening has the word "gambit" in the title, doesn't guarantee a win with inaccurate play!
I accept a lot of the database losses are with white players who probably don't really understand the gambit & many many times are rated significantly lower than their opponents.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI must disagree, the burden of proof should be on white ---
As I said before, all the people knocking the gambit have yet to come up with any sort of defence for black.
as with all gambit/sacrifice lines "black wins by default"* -- that is, if white does not prove the win/equality, black leads in material.
* I mean the side who accepts the gambit.
Originally posted by ShinidokiSo gimme a line then...
I must disagree, the burden of proof should be on white ---
as with all gambit/sacrifice lines "black wins by default"* -- that is, if white does not prove the win/equality, black leads in material.
* I mean the side who accepts the gambit.
Originally posted by buddy2Play this opening against me using opening books and I can promise that you wont get any advantage in opening.
Just checked the game colony site. The stats--most of the games at high level with Mora are
34% wins 44% losses 22% draws
At he Chessbase site, the highest rated player using Morra was low 2500's (like Vallejo Pons). I checked all the games of the 2500 players. Using the morra, all were playing lower players who had black (one as low as 1900) , wh ...[text shortened]... are good OTB.
Be careful of recommendations by authors of opening books for obvious reasons.