I play the Smith-Morra Gambit as white against the Sicilian, and I'm thinking of getting The Modern Morra Gambit by Hannes Langrock, since it seems to be regarded as the latest and best book on SMG theory. But from online reviews, it seems that the biggest complaint about this book is that it doesn't have much coverage of what to do when the gambit is declined. I think this would often transpose to the 2. c3 Sicilian, so maybe I should get a book on that, too. Any suggestions for books (or DVD's) on that line, or other variations of the Smith-Morra declined?

--Fromper

chessfanforlife wrote: everythingchess

---

 ???

 

--Fromper 

If Black declines the pawn on by playing d3 you do not need a book to play Bxd3. If Black declines by playing Nf6 you could use a book on the Alapin. If Black declines with d5, various openings may result, such as the French or Scandinavian. Other ways to decline allow you to play cxd4 or not. An author may not have much incentive to write a book on the Smith-Morra that includes much on its decline. Publishers will limit the size of the book. With any opening, you have to choose what to do when your hoped for variation is not played. Writers write on specific variations, not everything else. Reviews are good to use, but if you actually read the book reviewed you can benefit, especially if you are not at the level of the reviewer who is aware of more nuances than most readers.

Graw81 wrote:
the s**t morra gambit?! my advice is dont play this opening at all, strictly blitz opening. otherwise you will be crushed =) by anyone who knows 'anything' about chess. This is terrible white choice, theres soo much better choices. Play open sicilians and be a real player.

---

 Wow. I have fallen victim to some subtle traps in the SMG. I guess I know nothing about chess. Oh well, back to snooker!

Graw81 wrote:
the s**t morra gambit?! my advice is dont play this opening at all, strictly blitz opening. otherwise you will be crushed =) by anyone who knows 'anything' about chess. This is terrible white choice, theres soo much better choices. Play open sicilians and be a real player.

---

 Ok, prove it. I just sent you a game challenge as white entitled "I dare you to refute the Smith-Morra Gambit". Our ratings on this site are pretty close to each other, so it should be a roughly even game. And per the rules of the site, checking with opening books or master game databases is ok, just not computer programs. I'm still learning the gambit, so I'll definitely be consulting reference material for the opening moves. Feel free to do the same.

 

--Fromper 

The morra gambit cant be too bad if even Fischer played it against Korchnoi, they drew.

Reb wrote: The morra gambit cant be too bad if even Fischer played it against Korchnoi, they drew.

---

 I saw a game on the internet where someone tried it against Kasparov in the 90's, and that game ended in a draw, too. Personally, I've only ever faced an opponent rated over 2000 USCF once in a tournament. Most of my opponents are rated 1200-1800, and I'm only 1468 myself. At my level, the gambit's a perfectly fine way to get a fun, tactical game without having to study every variation of the Open Sicilian to avoid getting clobbered in my opponents' pet lines. As an average adult player, I'll be happy if I ever break 2000 USCF, so this gambit might be good enough for the rest of my chess career.

 

--Fromper 

You seem to be missing the point. There are dozens of important lines to memorize in the Open Sicilian, and it would take months of study time for me to learn all of them. Given that roughly 75% of my opponents answer 1. e4 with the Sicilian, there's a very steep learning curve. If I start playing the Open Sicilian, I'm going to lose a LOT of games when I walk into the pet lines of my opponents.

 

However, if I play the Smith-Morra (or 2. c3, which is probably sounder than the SMG and I'll be studying a little at the same time), I'll avoid all that theory. A couple of hours of learning main lines, and I'm ready to dive in. My opponents are the ones out of their pet lines, and they might just walk into the lines I know best.

 

More important than the short term wins is the fact that this frees up a LOT of chess study time that I won't have to spend on openings. Right now, I'm severely focused on endgames, along with regular tactical study. Openings and strategy are part of the overall study plan, too, but endgames and tactics are the top priority until I break at least 1700-1800 USCF. So why would I want to commit myself to playing sharp openings that require so much study time, when that would take away from studying the things that will help me regardless of what openings I play?

 

--Fromper 

Fromper said, "So why would I want to commit myself to playing sharp openings that require so much study time, when that would take away from studying the things that will help me regardless of what openings I play?" That is reasonable, but even so, you cannot always get the opening you want. I played 5 minute sessions with Ken Smith in 1968 and 1978. I do not remember any Smith-Morras resulting. If you want to study openings beyond what you are familiar with you do not need to know everything, especially playing 1200-1800 players. It would help to select a position you want to get in a variation new to you. Each time you get near it, you could study a little more. This is like learning a new town by learning main streets first and side streets later. You do not need to start a pawn down. Of course, if it has been fun, enjoy.

How can I follow the game between Fromper and Graw81?

never mind, I got it already.

 

Fromper you are playing a new line, called "hang a rook?" Doesn't look too promising.

Fotoman wrote: Fromper you are playing a new line, called "hang a rook?" Doesn't look too promising.

---

 Yeah, not exactly my best game. You'd think in correspondence chess, you'd have time to really analyze and come up with the best moves, but I tend to lose the thread of the game and lose track of things. I'm better at OTB games, as long as they're at a slow time control. 

 

--Fromper 

You might be right. I might have a lack of understanding of the gambit. Remember, I started this thread to ask about buying books on this gambit, so it's not like I've read any yet. I'm still fairly new to this gambit. I know Bg5, Bf4 and Be3 are all normal places for that bishop in various lines of the gambit, but I don't know enough to know which lines usually involve which bishop placement yet.

 

As for the Open Sicilians, there are just too many of them to study. I've actually tried studying the Open lines a little in the past, but I found pretty quickly that for every line I learn something about, there's another 10 that my opponents will throw at me. If I study the Dragon, my opponent hits me with the Najdorf. I study the Najdorf to be prepared for that next time, and my next opponent plays the Sveshnikov or whatever. And that was just introductory study I was doing, not even anything detailed. That's why I want one default line that I'll know better than most of my opponents that I can play against the Sicilian. 

 

By sticking to the SMG, after a couple of hours of opening study, I'll know more than my opponents about the opening in probably 80-90% of my Sicilian games. Compare that to spending the same couple of hours learning the essentials of one Open line that only 5-10% of my Sicilian opponents will play. I only have a few hours per week for "book" chess study, not counting playing time and reviewing my own games, so it would take a couple of months to learn as much about the various Open lines as I can learn about the SMG in probably one week. That would seriously cut into my tactics and endgame study time, which are far more important at my level.

 

I'm not saying I'll never switch to playing the Open Sicilian, but I just have other priorities right now. Besides, the SMG seems like it could be fun, and at my level (U1600 section of USCF tournaments), most opponents won't know how to play against it very well.

 

--Fromper 

Well, I co-wrote two books on the Smith-Morra Gambit (Accepted and Declined) with Ken Smith.  They may be available from chess booksellers or Amazon or eBay.  It was everything we could find on SMG Accepted and Declined at the time.

Fromper, I think the SMG is an interesting practical choice. As an occasional Sicilian player, I don't enjoy seeing it on the board and have rather poor results against it.

As per your request for reference material in the Alapin, Play the c3 sicilian by Rozentalis is a solid work, and Tiviakov, an world specialist, has issued a DVD for ChessBase

Here's my game against Graw81, with my annotation. I lost, but it was a good learning experience for me.

 

 

I would probably have played 8.OO. It is more flexible. I can see some lines where d2 could be a better place for the queen since Black has commited to this piece alignment, which has potential to be weak at the axis point e6. By placing the rooks on the e+d files instead of the normal c+d, there may be long range benefits for White.

This comes to my whole point, the White arrangement is fluid and dynamic and Black is committed. That means that once you decided to attack something, whether the kindside or center, Black may not be able to react as quickly. Also, just because you lose a game or two does not mean a line is bad. Think of learning a new opening like trying to speak a new language, you will stumble through it for a period of time before you feel comfortable.

 

 

No way. I'd never play a3 (or h3) in any gambit opening. Not in the opening phase, anyway. Gambits are about developing your pieces for an attack as quickly as possible, and playing defense just doesn't fit with that concept.

 

As I said in the notes with the game, Langrock doesn't like 8. Qe2 much, because it allows black to play Ne7, transposing to a better line for black. He gives 8. O-O an exclamation point in this line, but his continuation has 9. Qe2, so we ended up transposing back to that line up until the point when I brought out my bishop to the wrong square. 

 

I'm not sure about 8. O-O b4. I'm checking in from work, so I don't have the book in front of me right now, but it kind of looks like a situation where the thematic SMG Nd5 sac might work. It would open up the e file when the black king is nowhere near being able to castle, and white has a rook and queen easily able to reach that file, along with checking possibilities on the queen side from a4. I'll look at it more later and also check the book to see what Langrock thinks.

 

--Fromper 

Ok, so I'm looking in Langrock's book to see what he thinks of these 8th move suggestions for both sides. He agrees with me about 8. a3, saying "You don't sacrafice a pawn for an attack, and then play moves like 8. a3". As I said earlier, he doesn't particularly like my 8. Qe2, suggesting Ne7 for black.

 

As for 8. O-O, he gives two main games, one of which has 8. ... d6 9. Qe2 and we're back to our game. In the other, he likes your suggestion of  8. ... b4, as well as my response of 9. Nd5 to sac for an attack.

 

--Fromper