A Defense to the Smith-Morra Gambit?

qwerty, It was nice to see your game.  Attempting to play that typical open Sicilian style set up with 7...Qc7 can get Black in trouble in the Smith-Morra because White's c-file is open.  Theory calls for 7...Nge7.  White's 11 Nd5 impresses me.  

Anyhow, you weathered the storm and proved your endgame skills.

I have tried 2..Qc7 against a well-known aficando of the Smith Morra,... after trying to refute it several times in Blitz, he went to a Maroczy Bind formation, which may or may not be good,... 3.c4, cd4: 4. Qd4: Nc6 is one possibility,..

Try it, not much theory and at least you will not get mated in 15 moves.

Another option for accepting the gambit, instead of e6 you play the far less commen but quite sound a6 preparing Nf6 and the intended Bg4 with the idea of exchaning on f3 and halting whites attack. If black divertes with for instance Bg5 instead of Qe2 you can respon e6! with the idea that the bishop normally is not well placed on g5 in those positions.

What would you recommend for white? Acording to my openings book the other tried moves in this position instead of Qe2 is:

Has this line been refuted recently? It's been a while since I looked at the material.

If you play a lot of blitz, it is in my opinion not worth accepting the gambit, instead consider declining with Nf6.

McNastyMac, Isn't it funny how when you do 4...e6, White will still go Bc4 anyway?  Smith-Morra players are such determined attackers!

Perhaps white can afford to go Bc4 after e6 because black has made another pawn move instead of getting his pieces off the back rank, meanwhile white is developing another piece and preparing to castle. Don't forget, white not only sacrifices a pawn but also has the ability to sacrifice pieces because of his lead in development.

As a Sicilian player I used to be dismissive of the Smith-Morra too, that stopped when I began actually doing analysis of my wins against it and realized I was only winning most of the time because white missed tactical shots that almost always arise after the gambit is accepted. Now I play the gambit myself as white, and it's one of my favorite openings to play from both sides. Some of the highest rated opponents I've beaten on this site I've beaten with the Smith-Morra. Yes it's often because they make mistakes in defending, but it's hard not to make a mistake when there's so much pressure. It's a narrow path to walk, a path only wide enough for one as Tal would say.

Actually black has two transposition options: not only the Alapin after 1.e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 Nf6 (or 3... d5), but also the French or the open Sicilian with 1. e4 c5 2. d4 e6. Now, 3. Nf3 leads to the e6 Sicilian, while 3. c3 d5 4. e5 is the advance variation of the French. Granted, most Sicilian players wouldn't feel comfortable playing the French, but that's also true about most Morra Gambit players.

Thanks for the comment pfren. I wasn't aware of the 3.d5 transposition (and perhaps it's not common knowledge at all, as I had a 2100 reply 2..e6 in an OTB game recently), I'd better look into it.

Now for an ego-crusher go analyze the game and see all the mistakes your opponent made that let you off the hook. Better yet post it here so we all can analyze it.

It's no more frustrating to lose playing gambits than losing normally.I actually think it's less frustrating since even if you lose with the Smith-Morra you know you went for it and played fun, exciting chess.

A lot of endgames with just an extra pawn are drawn. Thus if black makes a mistake he loses, while if white makes a mistake he often still gets a draw.

Perhaps some IMs and GMs who are condescending of the gambit are so because they're jealous that at their level where people never make mistakes they can't play them. Instead they must play things like the Berlin Wall defense.

Congratulations on the win, and sorry if I seemed a bit touchy, I just get defensive of my gambit openings since people are wrongly being condescending to them all the time.

When I first started chess I read and heard from so many people that "The Smith-Morra gambit is an unsound opening, etc" that I started to view this gambit with condescension too. Then as I analyzed my wins against it I saw there was almost always that moment in the game where white would suddenly get a big spike of advantage, just that my opponents were often missing this opportunity.

As I recall, at least once this spike of white advantage was because they could have done a bishop sacrifice on d5, and this was on a game where I had played e6 as I used to use the Nge7 lines before switching to what I use now, the kingside fianchetto variation.

This is kind of a Smith-Morra, with the gambit on c3.

Use the Chicago defense with the rook lift and you should use the extra pawn.

Check out chessbases opening book text using Knight to E7. Black has a huge winning percentage compared to different lines.

last USCF rated game I ever played was a smith morra vs a former Illinois Chess Champion.  Earlier in the tournament I drew with a smith morra vs a 2415 player and beat an expert. 

However, I would not be surprised if there is a refutation to that gambit.

I think it is e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 nxc3 nc6 nf3 d6 bc4 a6 O-O nf6 qe2 bg4 rd1 e6 bf4 be3 ne5 bb3 Bxf3 gxf3 qh4 Kg2 g5 Ba4+ ke7 qd2 kf6 ne2 g4 nd4 gxf3+ kh1 rg8 rg1 rg6 rac1 be7 rxg6+ hxg6 rg1 kg7 bh6+ kh7 bd1 rh8 nxf3 qxe4 qe3 ng4 qxe4 nxf2+ kg2 nxe4

I am dusting off an old topic because I just played my first Smith-Morra gambit with Black. White develops rapidly in the first 10 moves, and Black must be careful not to get overwhelmed. There is a lot of theory on this opening, but two 1300 rated players will not keep playing the common lines and best moves. I thought the game was even for 20 moves, when my opponent overlooked a checkmate threat.