Perhaps White can get a good attack in many of the lines or get dangerous attacks but after the simple 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd 3.c3 d5!? or 3...Nf6!? Black pretty much forces transposition into the Alapin sicilian which is a very popular line. If Black has these options - two of the most popular in fact - then what's the point of this gambit?

From a repertoire point of view it seems economical to just bypass the thing regardless of Black's chances to keep theory low. Perhaps if Black is hell-bent on proving an advantage he will accept but personally I don't care. So wouldn't it just make more sense to play the c3 sicilian instead of this thing which is so easily sidestepped?

Wait, is your statement that openings which offer transpositional possibilities are to be avoided?

No. Rather that openings that can be completely avoided (especially at class level) are a waste of time. The English opening for example has plenty of transpositions but you're not going to be forced into a completly different opening if you don't want to be.

It just seems to make more sense to play c3 since you'd be forced to play those lines even if you played the Smith-Morra anyway. Maybe 3...d5 is not so great but you will still need to know what to do with White anyway. I just don't see the point of playing 2.d4 here.

Is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 with the idea of 3.c3 is better or are there problems here too?

What "theory" does black have to know anyway? Set up a Scheveningen and when he does his "amazing knight sacrifice" take with the pawn and then with the Nf6?

After this your typical Smith Morra afficionado seems confused, spends some time on the clock, and wonders why it didn't work. Let me tell you all you SM players out there... every time you play that gambit the really good players are laughing at you.

If you want to try a respectable gambit, try the King's Gambit, Scotch Gambit, even blackmar diemer isn't completely refuted. There is a point or reason to play those gambits that isn't hoping your opponent will fall into a quick trap.

I don't know anything about it's theoretical soundness. I just wanted to try it out. But if it's that easy to get away from then what's the point? LOL

Chess is game between two people. Both players choose the opening, and pretty much any opening line you want to name can be avoided by one side or the other if they so choose. 

My main weapon against 1. e4 is the french. That white can avoid the french and transpose into other openings doesn't mean I've wasted my time learning the french. It means I have to be aware of those trasnpositional possibilities and prepare accordingly. 

The Smith-Mora is a fun little opening sideline. If you're learning it thinking that it's your primary weapon as a 1. e4 player, you're probably thinking about the opening incorrectly. But that doesn't make the SMG a waste of time, it merely highlights that the person looking at the opening in that way is a tad ignorant. 

As Black I like to see the Smith-Mora gambit. White doesn't get an overwhelming advantage in development, and Black gets a "free" pawn. I think that you're right to forget about it. 

What a terrible thing to say! Learning the Ruy Lopez will teach you tons of middlegame plans and make you a better player whether you use them or not. 

Now about Smith-Morra (which i play often enough on OTB games with great results) i find it easier to get into the opening via 1.e4-c5 2.Nf3-d6/Nc6/g7e6 3.d4 cxd 4.c3...etc 

Black still can (and many times does) avoid it with 4...d3 or 4...Nf6. While 4..d3 5.c4 will revert into a bind which is fine for me since i played it many times but it doesnt mean black will be familiar with it too. 4...Nf6 may turn into an Alapin-like game but not quite. 

My 2c

Antonisf - context dude :) the point is that everyone of those openings can be avoided by black. So, given the OP's standards for what openings are a waste of time or not, they shouldn't be bothered with. :)

I'm not sure bro. Good thing there's the Scotch Game for that.

Seriously though there are things that must be taken into account.

I am not in a situation where I NEED lots of theory. And to expect someone to play all the way into some Marshall gambit or whatever is just plain dumb. Theoretically if you play the Smith Morra not only do you need the normal accepted and declined stuff, but you're also forced into playing two other lines of an entirely new opening. There's nothing like that with the Ruy and worst case scenario you can feel around. There is no point to make the workload bigger than it needs to be.

If I did play the sicilian I would ALWAYS play 3...Nf6. Why?

1.I could sidestep it and never be worse off for it.

2.Less theory

My entire repertoire in fact is based on not studying things.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 - I know NO theory here but everyone takes on c6. It's likely that they thought it would be the same as the exchange but it's not. Also, if White is spending all night studying move 29 of the whatsawhosits gambit it's pretty much wasted against me.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 ed 4.Nxd4 Qh4 - Probably losing for Black, but odds are White is too busy with move 8 of that Miesis line. I usually end up in an endgame with a free pawn.

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 - What??!? The triple deke didn't work!!!

1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.c3 d5 - Isolated pawn. Don't need any theory for that...

The only thing I have trouble with is the two knights because you really can't fake that one... It's my biggest problem with playing 1...e5 right now.

For everything else there's a quick shortcut that doesn't require me to memorize much at all. Now there's no way I'm going to memorize all that Smith-Morra crap and the c3 sicilian. It's one or the other. That eliminates the Smith-Morra then.

Personally though I wouldn't touch the Ruy Lopez until I had a lot of experience with at least the exchange and I don't so...

In a nutshell the Smith-Morra isn't worth the trouble imo. If it was sooooo good that it was worth the workload then maybe I'd bother. Ok, no I wouldn't.

No one is expecting you to play anything. You're not expected to play chess, that you choose to is of course a good thing.

Given that you want to avoid having too much on your plate to study, there's good reasons why studying the Smith Mora would be a poor use of your time in your current situation. 

But that in context it is better for you to spend your time on something else doesn't make the Smith Mora a "waste of time" in general. All it means is that for you, right now, it's not the best choice for spending your time. 

Now, maybe that's what you intended, but it isn't what you said. What you said was nonsense. 

So there's a good reason to memorize two openings to deal with one line? I'd love a good explanation for that.

I'm sorry but this is the wrong attitute. Its like saying you dont want to study KBN v K or KQ v KR because whats the point? its never going to happen to you.

Taking shortcuts is not a productive way to get better. As for the Ruy (and all the classics for that matter) i would strongly advice to at least look at it. In Russia they say Polugaevsky never became world champion because he never did his classical education, and for me that say it all.

:-)

Because the other guy gets to make moves too.

 This really screws me up.

LOL yes I know. However you are only giving Black more options this way. Other than the pure enjoyment of playing both, it really just doesn't seem productive.

Yes I study some but I always try to go to a sideline as quickly as possible. I don't know anything that forces me to go as far as a Marsahall gambit. I played that thing maybe one time but got mostly early d3 games and exchanges.

It depends on the opening in question.

The SMG is a sideline, it can be avoided by both parties with no ill effects. But that is not always the case. 

If you are a black player and you choose to play 1. ... Nf6 and 2. ... e6 against d4 mainlines, you have to have a response for both 3. Nf3 and 3. Nc3. You can want to play the Nimzo all you want, but if white plays 3. Nf3 you can't. YOu have to play something else. So you need at least 2 openings against the moves 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. ??