Would you rather play the Smith-Morra or the King's Gambit?
I believe in the King's Gambit despite it's flaws. I can't say the same about the Smith-Morra.
Personal preference more than anything else. I like the vastness of the King's Gambit whereas the S-M feels very narrow in scope -- it's more than a one trick pony but not by much. For some people, that might actually be a benefit but it's not to my taste.
How do you explain Milan Matalovic' sucess with it? Has theory really come on that far since his time?
Agreed.
Not only did I think you would choose the King's Gambit, but I would choose it myself too.
They should call the 2.c3 Sicilian the Caro-Kann Sicilian, don't you think?
Yes! They evoke similar responses any time I face them -- part dread, part disappointment. I feel more strongly about the Alapin than I do the C-K. I can't fault black for playing for a draw but when white does it, it seems criminal!
Matulovic is to the Smith-Morra what Spassky is to the King's Gambit. Mortal milage may vary.
I looked at the theory behind the S-M awhile back and it seems to be yet another unsound gambit.
Unsound is too harsh in my opinion. Like the King's Gambit, it's ineffectual if black knows the theory and lethal if he doesn't. Few people seem to know the theory which is why many players report phenomenal results when they play it. As soon as you start regularly encountering an early e6/a6, the Smith-Morra loses much of it's appeal....
Nope, I'm perfectly happy against e6 and a6 in conjunction with each other. There's only one variation I don't like for White, and I shan't be sharing it here :)
But you will share it with me right ;)
Milan kicked some serious backside with the Morra!
Does 'perfectly happy' mean that you can reach the middlegame with an advantage? Or simply survive the game? If it's the former, I have my doubts. If it's the latter, you'll get no argument from me.
Not to pop your bubble, but how is white playing for a draw with the 2.c3 Sicilian? If I may re-phrase, white is playing for a small opening advantage, instead of playing to wipe black off the board in the first 30 moves.
Not to say that you wouldn't get wiped off the board against the Alapin, especially against someone who knows how to play it, but still.
I have no idea what white's goal is when he plays it, but 2.c3 "feels" drawish because it's both harder to lose to and harder to defeat. Which is exactly how I feel about the Caro-Kann.
Well it's not like white is playing the exchange French, the exchange Slav, or repeating moves against the Zaitsev Ruy Lopez.
No, I don't claim to an advantage, but in those lines I claim full compensation for my pawn. And a far greater familiarity of the position than my opponent. So I'm happy reaching an objectively equal middlegame where I have the initiative in positions I have good familiarity with. Seems a good enough result from an opening :)
Well said.
There certainly is value in "framing the discussion", as it were.
But there has got to be a better way of doing that, where you aren't sacrificing the pawn.
I love how no one has answered my Q.
This makes some sense except for the fact that you said "equal". No white is not equal in the smith morra. If he was, it would be extremely popular. The idea would be that you could throw everything at him and if that "somehow" didn't work, you get an easy draw. No, you have to accept more than that. White is definitley at a disadvantage no doubt as he doesn't get much more than the open besisdes more traps and minimally more initiative yet your options are reduced since you will probably lose any endgame. I mean chess is a draw anyway so being able to attack like crazy with equal if your opponent plays correctly is not much worse than still having an edge because you get so many chances to win either way by relying on traps and stuff. The risk is that black is better if he plays right and white suffers in those positions. In the close sicilian you have to accept equality to get a position you like but you don't get all the attempts to smash your opponent yet the closed is more respected. I myself would not want to play at a disadvantage with white.
Again, Milan Matulovic.
Ok, white is not playing for a draw!! That's like saying 1 d4 players play for a draw. He's just more positional but can still get an edge! If that's what you think white is going for you're just wrong. He's just not trying to win in a huge attack like the open lines which makes it less theoretical but if white is fine with a calmer win which I am, 2 c3 is excellent since he can still get the edge. It can lead to interesting positional positions, like when it transposes into the french!
This makes some sense except for the fact that you said "equal". No white is not equal in the smith morra. If he was, it would be extremely popular. The idea would be that you could throw everything at him and if that "somehow" didn't work, you get an easy draw. No, you have to accept more than that. White is definitley at a disadvantage no doubt as he doesn't get much more than the open besisdes more traps and minimally more initiative yet your options are reduced since you will probably lose any endgame. I mean chess is a draw anyway so being able to attack like crazy with equal if your opponent plays correctly is not much worse than still having an edge because you get so many chances to win either way by relying on traps and stuff. The risk is that black is better if he plays right and white suffers in those positions.
White's a pawn down and doesn't appear to lose by force. I call that equal.
Even if black makes it to the endgame with the extra pawn it's difficult to convert the kingside majority into a win; even more so if white has the bishop pair for a long period of time which, in my experience, happens pretty often.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.