Smith-Morra Gambit Declined | Such Interesting Positions! | Scandinavian Formation
#sicilian #smithmorragambit #gambitdeclined #epicwinning
I've REALLY been enjoying the Smith-Morra Gambit against the Sicilian Defense recently! This is another game where we ended up out of our mutual knowledge of opening theory on move 3, and we then ended up in enormously fun and tactical positions!
My opponent declined the Smith-Morra Gambit with d5, which is the "Scandinavian Formation" (1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 d5). One of the advantages of the Smith-Morra Gambit is that if Black declines the gambit, the position often ends up looking a bit weird, which means that Black's superior theoretical knowledge of Sicilian lines won't help! I played aggressively and took the pawn on d4 with my queen (4. Qxd4), not the most accurate move [-0.4], but ostensibly a force to be reckoned with in the centre.
Black attempted to develop normally with their knights, but this gave me the opportunity to push my uncontested e-pawn to e5, leading to a Vienna Gambit like conundrum for Black on how they would manage the threat to their king's knight on f6. Like in the Vienna Gambit lines, the best move for the knight is to undevelop back g8, but this is difficult to see and contemplate. And thus, on move 6, my opponent makes an opening blunder (6... Ne4), which leads to their knight being trapped [+4.5].
Into the early middlegame, I'm completely winning. I'd smashed Black's queenside, was up a minor piece in material, and although Black was trying to counterattack with their lone queen, Stockfish didn't believe they had any hope giving the evaluation of [+9] on move 15.
And then on move 17, disaster! This was a daily game and I have the unfortunate habit of blitzing out a move on my phone on the go. Not uncommonly, I forget what I was trying to do, and sometimes, I simply misread the board on the small screen. Here, I straight up hang my knight, not seeing that Black's bishop could capture the knight, and in moving off the d-file, revealing an attack on my queen by their rook (17. Nb5 Bxb5). My advantage was now completely erased, with Stockfish tipping the favour to Black [-1.2].
However, in practice, this part of the middle game was easier to play for Black. Firstly, their rook controlled the fully open d-file. And they had the bishop pair. Two bishops will often bully a rook, and my rook was my most active piece. By move 21, Black has managed to grab a decisive advantage at around [-5].
And from here, there is an instructive lesson about middlegame strategy. Black was winning not because of material (we were equal). Rather, they had a better coordinated attack, especially with the bishop pair. So, it would be a mistake for Black to trade down pieces, especially a bishop, until they gain an absolute material advantage. On the other hand, for me, that was my goal - to trade pieces as I could probably transform a losing position into a drawn endgame. And this is what happened. First, Black traded off one of their bishops, then the rook, and then another bishop. We entered a rook and pawn endgame with completely symmetrical pawns, and not surprisingly, the evaluation was [0.00].
Luckily for me, I might have been a little better at rook and pawn endgames than my opponent. Black sacrificed their a-pawn for king activity. Although Stockfish thinks that the position remained [0.00], in practical terms, the game suddenly became easier for me as I now had a passed pawn. And then, on move 38, based on Black's previous "trading" behaviour, I predicted that they would trade rooks if placed in a scenario where it appeared that they had a winning attack, but then were forced to retreat. Psychological tactics! My prediction was true, and this transformed the game from [0.00] to [+M25]! The key was the passed a-pawn which now could not be stopped. Black played on valiantly but resigned on move 48 soon after I brought back a queen on the board. GG!
Game on chess.com: https://www.chess.com/game/daily/492947007
