Yes, this Double Smith-Morra gambit is perfectly playable at 1200 level. 
Danish Gambit / Smith Morra
Sort:
If black’s next move is e6, where do you go from there?
indeed, there is a big difference with 1.e4 e5 and 1.e4 c5.
Black can play e6 and block Bc4's diagonal.
So u get an improved danish gambit for black...
I like how you have your two bishops pointed at Black's (future) castled king! Looks like your queen-knight will have to develop to d2 though, and you're down 2 pawns. Do you find these drawbacks are worth the early pressure you get on Black? Interesting.
Jun 17, 2018
0
#6
I have already named your Sicilian Double ... The Lundskog Gambit after my buddy who has played it for years ... with success I might add! Happy Fathers Day!
Dec 11, 2018
0
#7
At beginners, intermediate level even 1. f3 is playable. The gambiteer wins coz of superior tactical skills, not better openings.
Since I play both a lot, i still like the Danish better than the Smith Morra because black's e-pawn is already pushed, easier to remove and also makes the c4 bishop stronger. I don't think sacrificing two pawns in the smith-morra as if it was the danish is good because of the same reason why I prefer the Danish. I'm barely 1600 though so I guess my opinion doesn't count.
Nowhere close to being promising, or anything.
I think the following developing scheme is a refutation.
First the bishop was limited in scope by ...e6, and then the ...Na6! idea is excellent: The knight will find his perfect outpost at c5 (there are no white pawns to annoy the horsey!), and following something like ...b6, ...Bb7 etc when white has nothing to show for his investment (and he cannot even try to cripple a bit Black's queenside by 7.Bxa6 since Black can take back with his queen (7...Qa5+). There is a huge difference comparing to the Danish gambit: Black's king is completely safe at e8, and developing the kingside is not urgent.
RonPaulsSteelBalls έγραψε:
It is my belief that 4. Qb3 is superior to 4. Bc4
There must be some deep logic behind 4.Qb3, e.g. the Queen doing something useful there. Unfortunately I don't see it.
Do you want to switch the Queen to, say, g3?
And 6.Nd2 Na6 allows 7.Bxa6 with a hint of compensation. Why not 6...b6 first?
Dec 12, 2018
0
#11
Don't sac 2 pawns on the Smith-Morra becouse black will just play e6 adn you have nothing. This is better:
The Danish gambit is somewhat busted becouse everybody have played it and knows what to do.
Dec 12, 2018
0
#12
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:
that variation is nice but the point of sacking two pawns is not for the creation of equality. and e6 alone is not it's final refutation. The game is up to the player to decide the outcome and the advance in development, in my experience, almost always results in white determining the outcome, win or lose. Also, the opening is not new, and ideas 4.Qb3 are just one of the ideas refuting the later e6
If you have equality it means that the activity of your pieces compensates being a pawn down.
4.Qb3 it's just bad
Dec 12, 2018
0
#13
Danish Gambit (and Kings Gambit) can surprise and defeat opponents. Not reliable for regular use. The Morra however is a reliable regular Opening.
Dec 12, 2018
0
#14
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:
Im_just_bad wrote:
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:
that variation is nice but the point of sacking two pawns is not for the creation of equality. and e6 alone is not it's final refutation. The game is up to the player to decide the outcome and the advance in development, in my experience, almost always results in white determining the outcome, win or lose. Also, the opening is not new, and ideas 4.Qb3 are just one of the ideas refuting the later e6
If you have equality it means that the activity of your pieces compensates being a pawn down.
4.Qb3 it's just bad
4. Qb3 is accepted standard theory. You are very confused.
Seems garbage to me and to the engine. You are just allowing a queen trade by Qb4+ and that's in fact the plan for black
RonPaulsSteelBalls a écrit :
Im_just_bad wrote:
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:
that variation is nice but the point of sacking two pawns is not for the creation of equality. and e6 alone is not it's final refutation. The game is up to the player to decide the outcome and the advance in development, in my experience, almost always results in white determining the outcome, win or lose. Also, the opening is not new, and ideas 4.Qb3 are just one of the ideas refuting the later e6
If you have equality it means that the activity of your pieces compensates being a pawn down.
4.Qb3 it's just bad
4. Qb3 is accepted standard theory. You are very confused.
"Accepted standard theory", really?
Where did u see this?
I've never seen it on books, no games in databases...
Qb3 doesn't make any sense if black didn't play e5 : no attack on f7 and Qb3 will proved to be bad placed later.
U can create your own theory, but don't tell it is standard...
4.Qb3 is really unique: Accepted standard theory that has never been played... 
Qb3 is a waste of time. You're not threatening anything and the queen is technically misplaced, it should be in the kingside. 4...e6 and black can easily keep his 2-pawn advantage with no compensation for white. Not to mention, the light squared bishop doesn't have a good diagonal to develop to because of e6. Sacrificing two pawns in the Smith-Morra is already bad, yet you still chose to waste more moves.
I love playing the danish gambit. I realise that some of you higher rated players will probably think it's unsound but down at my rating (1200 ish) it really has that shock and awe factor combined with people not really knowing what to do.
Anyway, I've recently had the idea of combining it with the Smith Morra as my sort of personal anti sicilian. It seems to me that this has all the benefits of the danish but more so, given that black is going to have to spend another tempo moving his d or e pawns to get a bishop into the game.
Am I missing anything glaring here? What do people think?