what's your point gonnosuke? Don't you love the smith morra?
No, I don't even like the Smith-Morra. I don't really believe in it even though I know quite a few people who play it regularly with good results. As I mentioned earlier, I feel it's too narrow in scope to be very interesting.
Well yes, it's quite different from the king's gambit.
You really wouldn't want to be known as "the guy who plays the S-M".
That's for sure.
What are you getting that you can't with the open so much besisdes traps? Is it really worth the pawn? ... but it's not fun to be at a disadvantage when your tricks don't work.
I already told you. It's not about the tricks and traps. Sure it's worth the pawn. Anything else?
Fischer believed the morra gambit was good enough for a draw, but not more. Who wants to argue with Fischer ?!
Landa - Kasparov 1988
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 a6 7. O-O Nge7 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 d6 10. Qd2 g5 11. Bg3 Ng6 12. Rad1 Be7 13. Bb3 Nge5 14. Nxe5 dxe5 15. Qe3 Qa5 16. Nd5! (16. ... exd5 17. exd5 Bc5 18. Qe2 Ne7 19. Bxe6 0-0 20. d6!) Bd8 17. Rc1 Bd7 18. Rc5 b5 19. Qf3?! (here Landa misses his chance for more: 19. Rxc6! Bxc6 20. Bxe5 0-0 21. Bxc3 b4 22. Bxb4 and White is almost winning)19. ... exd5 20. Bxd5 O-O 21. Qh5 Kh7 22. Bxf7 Ne7 23. Rxe5 Qb6 24. Rxg5 Qf6 25. Bd5! Qxg5 26. Qxg5 hxg5 (and the game ends in a tactical ending with three pawns against a Knight) 27. Bxa8 Bb6 28. Bb7 Bc8 29. Ba8 Be6 30. Bb7 a5 31. b3 Bc8 32. Ba8 Ba6 33. Bd6 Rxa8 34. Bxe7 g4 35. Rd1 Rc8 36. Bh4 Rc2 37. h3 gxh3 38. gxh3 Bc8 39. Rd5 b4 40. Rb5 Bc7 41. Be7 Kg6 42. h4 Rc1+ 43. Kg2 Rc3 44. h5+ Kf7 45. Bg5 Bh3+ 46. Kg1 Bg4 47. Be3 Bh3 48. Rb7 Bd7 49. h6 Kg6 50. Ra7 Rc2 51. Ra6+ Bc6 52. Kg2 Kh7 53. Kf3 Rc3 54. Ra7 Kg6 55. Ra6 Kh7 56. Ra7 1/2 1/2
Reb: if it's good enough to get Kasparov in serious trouble, it's good enough for me ;)
hmm, Fischer probably thought 29.Bxh2 was good enough for a draw.
Couldn't agree more. And again, seeing as none of you can come up with anything against this:
Milan Matulovic
lol so what if kasparov drew (not even lost) against it once and not won like every other time. And no it's not worth the pawn. Maybe half a pawn. That half pawn helps you capitalize on your opponents mistakes but that doesn't make it equal. If your opponents don't fall for the traps then I don't know why you play it because you can think you have full compensation for the pawn, but the truth is you don't. Just ask any GM or IM. I already explained why black can hold on often in the middle game which is why black is better and wins more often but sure your opponents can make big errors depending on their rating. Your argument as to why you get full compensation is basically ignoring things like mco, claiming I don't know the morra, and because it's not about traps but at least I know why black can hold his position. You clearly like the morra, but that doesn't make it equal. But since you like it you're trying to get yourself to believe that. I don't care if you "believe" white has full compensation because I don't think so or GM's. That happened to me in the french winawer variation. My (biased but good) book showed lines where black was claimed to be better in most positions so I thought the winawer was good for black! Now it seems white can get a small to large edge but I hope that's not actually true just like you. Who would want their favorite opening to be bad?
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.