How do I counter the Smith-Morra Gambit? - Chess Forums - Page 5

Chesseract557 · 2018-03-05T02:34:11-08:00

This is an actual Smith-Morra Gambit situation unlike the previous thread. I'd usually capture the pawn, but smart people would not capture back with the queen and instead play c3, which is the point of the gambit. Does anyone have a good way to counter the gambit?

m_n0

Mar 10, 2018

0

#81

You've missed the point, I think.

If the Smith-Morra were as horrible as LT says, Anand would've taken out an hour to prepare 3...dc3 against Esserman. The fact that he went for the pragmatic approach means that Black isn't obviously better, nor winning after 3...dc3, otherwise he'd have just done his homework and taken an easy win.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#82

MetalRatel wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

The best line of play is to play d6, e6 and a6, getting to some kind of a hedgehog position, so the white pieces can not make use of their better development to penetrate, and then develop, retaining a full central d pawn more, which is a lot.

My lines are good, very good indeed, in the opening and everywhere, it is a pity people treat me in that way.

This is a very solid line for Black, but I could not find any advantage against 13.Na4:

I don't know.

I looked into it very carefully, and it is a very complicated tactical play in almost all variations, but black gets on top almost always.

One possible line after Na4 is this one, Nh4, to displace the bishop, followed by Bd8, guarding the b6 square.

SF reaches 50-60cps black edge.

A pawn more is a pawn more.

I don't know if that is sufficient for a win though.

As said, very complicated tactically, you need days to analyse it, but black will always retain a clear edge.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#83

nighteyes1234 wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

This is almost equal.

The central backward pawn on d6 is STILL worth a very large penalty, half a pawn or so, compared to the usual 1/4th of a pawn penalty for the average backward pawn, but many factors compensate:

- the knight on b3 and pawn on e4 are under attack

- black's pieces are more centrally placed, the knight on b3 is misplaced somewhat

- the white knigth on c3 blocks the c2 pawn(that is why the Maroczy is better)

- most importantly, black has sufficient overcontrol over the d5 square, so almost certainly landing a white piece there will be met by a capture, white will recapture with a pawn and the hole will be stuffed

So that, it really depends on the particular position.

The d6 central backward pawn though is still very weak.

OK, enough for today.

Eh? Other factors compensate? You know what that means....

Extra! Extra! Read all about it....REVOLUTIONARY NEWS...."Other factors compensate" per Lyudmil...but he has to OK it first. Seems secret of chess book is incomplete? Is there a eval table of every line that "other factors compensate"? Or a list of positions where other factors compensate for every pawn structure?

Every chess position is the sum total of all evaluation features present.

If you don't understand that, you understand nothing.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#84

m_n0 wrote:

nighteyes1234 wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

This is almost equal.

The central backward pawn on d6 is STILL worth a very large penalty, half a pawn or so, compared to the usual 1/4th of a pawn penalty for the average backward pawn, but many factors compensate:

- the knight on b3 and pawn on e4 are under attack

- black's pieces are more centrally placed, the knight on b3 is misplaced somewhat

- the white knigth on c3 blocks the c2 pawn(that is why the Maroczy is better)

- most importantly, black has sufficient overcontrol over the d5 square, so almost certainly landing a white piece there will be met by a capture, white will recapture with a pawn and the hole will be stuffed

So that, it really depends on the particular position.

The d6 central backward pawn though is still very weak.

OK, enough for today.

Please explain to me how d6 is "very weak" when it is well defended by the e7 Bishop, and White has no hope, in the near future of attacking it with a minor piece.

The hole in front of the pawn is the bigger weakness, the d5 square, and not the d6 backward pawn itself.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#85

MetalRatel wrote:

DeirdreSkye wrote:

MetalRatel wrote:

DeirdreSkye wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

DeirdreSkye wrote:

Esserman played the Smith Morra aginst Anand and Anand preffered to transpose to Alapin.

That was a classical time control game.

You believe you know more than Anand?

That is why he only drew.

Tradewise Gibraltar, Catalan Bay, not very reputable, is it?

Me + SF certainly we know more than Anand.

Especially when we analyse at home.

I bet Anand has not analysed that in-depth.

Anand has not analysed it in depth?

lol , man you are so funny sometimes.

You probably don't know Esserman is a well known expert in Smith Morra(he even has published a book) and Anand was expecting it.

Why not analyse it with Stockfiish and get an easy win?

Because obviously , there isn't any easy win. Smith Morra gambit is a complex struggle with equal chances.

It's a bit funny to me that you would think Anand would spend much time on the Morra against an IM who wrote a book on the opening. I'm sure Esserman had to greatly cull his analysis in the book for readability. The hours he spent on that opening must be staggering. His claim to fame is beating Van Wely in 26 moves with the Morra. A world class player has little motivation to try to find a refutation to the Morra or challenge a specialist in such an obscure line at top level.

You're probably more likely to find a serious challenge to the Morra from players at 2200-2650 level. For instance, GM Ivan Salgado found inspiration from the game Mosadeghpour,M (2474)-Ghaem Maghami,E (2577), Teheran 2016 for his presentation on Anti-Sicilians. Berg,E (2549)-Khairullin,I (2651), Minsk 2014 is another game I found in the same variation with better play for White. At this level, they play lower rated players more often in open tournaments, so they may be more likely to face the Morra, but still I think this is a rare occurrence above 2200 level. Another potential motivation is coaching for amateurs who face the Morra, but again the motivation to find a refutation is not too high when there are simple shortcuts to avoid complicated variations for the occasional encounter of a rare sideline.

You probably don't follow the discussion.

Tsvetkov said Morra is losing for white. And my question was , if indeed is losing why Anand didn't prepare on it and get an easy win?

I find it hard to believe that a player like Anand would underestimate so much Esserman and wouldn't bother to take an easy win if it was available esepcailly since he had a bad tournament. Everything you say is extremely dubious and doubtful at best.

NO.

This thread is not about Tsvetkov. It's about the Morra. I didn't say anything about him in my response to you, other than quote your response to him. I never saw him claim a win before your response, just an advantage. An advantage is not equal to an "easy win" by any normal usage of the word in chess analysis. Even if he claims a win, I don't really care. This comes across as a stupid distraction to discredit me by a weak association.

The Morra is not an easy opening to refute, unless you consider equality a "refutation". I have worked many hours on the opening and I am never completely satisfied with the analysis, since attempts at an advantage can become very complex, unclear, and hard to remember. If Black is too ambitious, his position often collapses even when the engines are initially optimistic. Esserman has spent a great deal of time on the opening and is probably one of the world's leading experts on the opening. He has an excellent book on the subject. If Anand entered the Morra, he would be entering Esserman's game into murky territory where he easily could fall into deeply prepared analysis. Frankly, I don't know how you are reading my response otherwise.

???

Rogozenko, in agreement with many other strong players, discussed the practical problems of accepting the gambit in his Anti-Sicilian book over a decade ago. The simplest solution is to kill two birds with one stone using 3...Nf6 transposing to the 2...Nf6 Alapin mainline, as YOU YOURSELF stated.

PLEASE stop strawmanning my arguments before using your favorite copy-and-paste response:

"Everything you say is extremely dubious and doubtful at best."

I have made specific arguments and variations to justify my opinion on the Morra, an opinion I formed well before I knew about Tsvetkov, while it is not even clear that you bothered to read past my first sentence. I really don't see what is controversial about my opinion, but at least get it right. I actually agree with some things you write until you enter "Tsvetkov mode". Then you look a bit silly, to my eyes at least.

Excellent post, especially the first part of it.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#86

BobbyTalparov wrote:

m_n0 wrote:

Please explain to me how d6 is "very weak" when it is well defended by the e7 Bishop, and White has no hope, in the near future of attacking it with a minor piece.

I don't think he understands the concept of weak squares - since d6 is not the weak square (d5 and c6 are the weak squares).

I mentioned a backward pawn on d6, not a weak square.

A backward pawn on d6 is equivalent to a hole/weak square on d5, right?

If the d6 pawn is backward, the d5 square is weak.

But, PLEASE NOTE well: weak squares are non-quantifiable, mostly, weak pawns are, so using the backward pawn terminology is definitely the much better approach.

I have been doing this for ages: backward pawns, weak squares, backward pawns, weak squares, what is the best way to define them, and thought about that in all the 100 000 or so games in later years I have browsed/analysed, so your assumptions I no know nothing about weak squares is simply hilarious.

It is the backward pawn that matters: you know the d5 square is a hole, and there IS an enemy pawn in front. That is the definition of a hole par excellence.

How will you define a weak square, if you don't know if there is an enemy pawn in front or not?

If the d6 pawn is not there, the d5 square is already not so weak, as the file will be open and different pieces could attack it.

No immobile pawn in front too.

So please, don't make any silly assumptions: I have thought about that day and night.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#87

m_n0 wrote:

You've missed the point, I think.

If the Smith-Morra were as horrible as LT says, Anand would've taken out an hour to prepare 3...dc3 against Esserman. The fact that he went for the pragmatic approach means that Black isn't obviously better, nor winning after 3...dc3, otherwise he'd have just done his homework and taken an easy win.

There are 300 openings and 5000 subopenings.

he can not prepare for everything.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#88

DeirdreSkye wrote:

MetalRatel wrote:

Top players often rely on seconds to do the dirty work and often they will refer to games from relatively unknown players in correspondence chess who have spent many hours on opening analysis. You don't need to be a top player to have quality analysis,

You more or less say that any patzer with an engine can claim he understands a line more than Anand. Of course you do forget that memorising a few Stockfish moves hardly means "understand".

Even if I agree with you (I don't) , I can't accept that a guy can see just one line in Stockfish and that immediately qualifies him to claim that he understands Smith Morra more than Anand . In my opinion this is the definition of ignorance and stupidity(EDIT: This is for Tsvetkov).

Do you know how much Anand has analysed Smith Morra? No you don't.

Even if he has a second(I know he had) , it's your theory that "he does his dirty work" and I don't even know what that means. Does it mean that Anand is sleeping all day and the second works 24/7? No, of course not. It means the second finds something and then both work hard on it analysing and examining the positions.

In my opinion , and I might be wrong , you simply have failed to understand what it means to be Anand. I'm sure he has spend a lot of time in Smith Morra long before he even had the need to have a second.

Even if he did, and that was 5 years ago, he would have analysed it with SF 2.

I have analysed it with SF 9.

HUGE difference, there are big chances his analysis is flawed.

So, no analysis is definitive.

Understood now, Mr. Soundmaker?

RubenHogenhout

Mar 10, 2018

0

#89

BobbyTalparov schreef:

Leo_C wrote:

BobbyTalparov skrev:

Leo_C wrote:

An easy way to play for black

Can you explain the purpose behind pushing e6 and then pushing e5 3 moves later?

e6 restricted the white bishop on c4,the system is solid for black. Later white plays Rd1 threatening e5 so black plays ...e5 himself to deprive white of that possibility. Always keep an eye on e5 if your queen and whites rook are on the same fil,there might be a capture there

Understood. Is there a way to play e7-e5 at once? I understand blunting the bishop, but it seems like a waste of tempo to have to play e5 so soon after playing e6.

On my club most Sicilian players and I think in general play 3...Nf6 to decline the Smith Morra. But I heard very good GMs just grab the pawn and never returns it and white sees it back never again. This first play of Nc6 d6 and e6 and then after you develope your pieces with Nf6 and Be7 this is why this is not a wast of a tempo. because after you developed your pieces the attack runs out of steam and when the treath of e5 becomes actual only then play e5 with black. I heard this is a good aproach to the Smith Morra to just keep the pawn and keep it.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 10, 2018

0

#90

BobbyTalparov wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

The important thing is I am able to find moves you are unable to.

That is what matters.

90% of opening lines that were played 100 years ago and considered as best and most popular are already not played nowadays.

Opening theory changes a lot, no one can claim the opposite.

Correct: Stockfish is able to find moves that I'm unable to find OTB. You rarely find anything of substantive value (Your Qe4 suggestion, for example, which was added to the database in 1995!).

105% of your statistics are completely made up, but going down what you are insinuating:

The first 10 moves of virtually every opening line have remained static for most of the last 80 years (note that roughly 50 of those years were prior to strong computers engines!). The "changes" to opening theory have largely been with regards to extending it. For example, in the Najdorf, there are lines that go out to 30+ moves (well into the middle game!). The first 10 moves of a given line in the Smith-Morra, Alapin, etc., have been fairly well-known for quite some time. If you think you are suddenly going to "throw out" many of those lines simply because of your misuse of an engine, you are more delusional than I had previously thought.

For example, here is the position from one of the Alpha Zero vs Stockfish games:

7. d5 is the 3rd most popular move (behind Nc3 and Re1) according to the Chess.com database (with Nc3 being a clear first with over 5300 games). [Granted, Stockfish was playing without an opening book and not optimally configured - that is outside the scope of this point] The first game I can find on record with this line is from 1957! That is, 60 years ago (well before strong computer engines), master-level players had determined this move was a good one. To dismiss a line because it is "old" is simply ignorant and arrogant. To assert that your silicon friend is going to "revolutionize" opening theory (when it is designed to rely on an opening book in its optimal configuration) is laughable, at best.

Yeah, 3rd most popular, but not first, so this implies it is definitely not considered best.

While it is!

So, in a single game, opening theory has changed.

You are mixing up gravely appearance on the board and precise assessment.

Everything has appeared on the board, until move 10 or so, humankind has played at least 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 chess games so far.

Of course, you will always find an antecedent.

The point is HOW those moves are ordered and assessed, I think this is clear.

And here things change very much.

No one uses opening books to test engines nowadays, mostly 2 moves-long or so, for variety.

You are very much behind on engine testing theory.

If ALL is written down in the holy scriptures of chess databases, why then no one knows what the best first move is?

Why?

Tell me just that very simple thing, looking it up into your extremely useful opening databases:

what is the best first chess move?

Then we can discuss about second moves.

You certainly understand finding a novelty on move 30, when you are unaware what the best first move is is stupid, right?

Yigor

Mar 10, 2018

0

#91

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

what is the best first chess move?

Imho, in the current state of art, there are 3 clear candidates: 1. d4, 1. e4 and 1. Nf3.

m_n0

Mar 10, 2018

0

#92

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

m_n0 wrote:

You've missed the point, I think.

If the Smith-Morra were as horrible as LT says, Anand would've taken out an hour to prepare 3...dc3 against Esserman. The fact that he went for the pragmatic approach means that Black isn't obviously better, nor winning after 3...dc3, otherwise he'd have just done his homework and taken an easy win.

There are 300 openings and 5000 subopenings.

he can not prepare for everything.

I don't know why I have to explain everything to you. Marc Esserman is a well-known specialist in the Smith-Morra. Even if Anand had no idea who Esserman was, he could check a database and see that Esserman plays the Smith-Morra. The Smith-Morra was then played in the game.

300 openings and 5000 "subopenings" are irrelevant.

Yigor

Mar 10, 2018

0

#93

I'm not sure whether 1. c4 should be considered as a potential candidate for the first best move ?!?

Yigor

Mar 10, 2018

0

#94

I could easily agree with the statement (probably defended by Lyudmil but in more exaggerated terms) that Smith-Morra is not as good for white as the classical Open Sicilian.

m_n0

Mar 10, 2018

0

#95

I mean, ultimately both are drawn with perfect play, but yes, I agree the Open Sicilian is stronger than the Smith-Morra Gambit. Fortunately, nobody's arguing that's not the case.

NM MetalRatel

Mar 10, 2018

0

#96

DeirdreSkye wrote:

MetalRatel wrote:

Top players often rely on seconds to do the dirty work and often they will refer to games from relatively unknown players in correspondence chess who have spent many hours on opening analysis. You don't need to be a top player to have quality analysis,

You more or less say that any patzer with an engine can claim he understands a line more than Anand. Of course you do forget that memorising a few Stockfish moves hardly means "understand".

Even if I agree with you (I don't) , I can't accept that a guy can see just one line in Stockfish and that immediately qualifies him to claim that he understands Smith Morra more than Anand . In my opinion this is the definition of ignorance and stupidity(EDIT: This is for Tsvetkov).

Do you know how much Anand has analysed Smith Morra? No you don't.

Even if he has a second(I know he had) , it's your theory that "he does his dirty work" and I don't even know what that means. Does it mean that Anand is sleeping all day and the second works 24/7? No, of course not. It means the second finds something and then both work hard on it analysing and examining the positions.

In my opinion , and I might be wrong , you simply have failed to understand what it means to be Anand. I'm sure he has spend a lot of time in Smith Morra long before he even had the need to have a second.

Nope, that's not what I am saying. Another strawman.

It is quite a stretch to refer to ICCF masters as patzers with engines, and it is becoming less of an unusual occurrence for GM authors to reference their games in opening manuals. They can recognize a good idea when they see it. You probably won't recognize the names of these correspondence masters unless you're a hardcore analyst. Chess is changing in this direction whether you like it or not. I have mixed feelings myself...

Opening research is time consuming and can even be counterproductive to maintaining OTB chess strength. There are different skill sets involved compared to normal OTB play and a good second can minimize some of the time and energy required for opening research. The whole process can be very "dirty" and it helps for someone to clean up the analysis for OTB consumption.

It is possible that Anand likes to analyze the Morra Gambit as some kind of fun side hobby when he gets sick of the Semi-Slav, but the last tournament game I could find where he encountered the Morra was in 1992 against Michael Adams where he played 3...Nf6 as well. I just don't think it is very high on his list of priorities. I can't read his mind of course, but the Morra is not a common opening among professionals and Van Wely did not think much of it when he saw it, as he confessed in the foreword to Esserman's book.

ZouDynasty

Mar 10, 2018

0

#97

I think there’s something called the Siberian trap

NM MetalRatel

Mar 10, 2018

0

#98

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

MetalRatel wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

The best line of play is to play d6, e6 and a6, getting to some kind of a hedgehog position, so the white pieces can not make use of their better development to penetrate, and then develop, retaining a full central d pawn more, which is a lot.

My lines are good, very good indeed, in the opening and everywhere, it is a pity people treat me in that way.

This is a very solid line for Black, but I could not find any advantage against 13.Na4:

I don't know.

I looked into it very carefully, and it is a very complicated tactical play in almost all variations, but black gets on top almost always.

One possible line after Na4 is this one, Nh4, to displace the bishop, followed by Bd8, guarding the b6 square.

SF reaches 50-60cps black edge.

A pawn more is a pawn more.

I don't know if that is sufficient for a win though.

As said, very complicated tactically, you need days to analyse it, but black will always retain a clear edge.

Thanks for the response. This looks interesting, but couldn't White also try to force a perpetual with 21.Bf4? 21...e5 looks a bit risky to play on.

NM MetalRatel

Mar 10, 2018

0

#99

RaymondMLG wrote:

I think there’s something called the Siberian trap

I tried very hard to make that work using Esserman's "Improved Siberian" move order, but objectively I am not even sure that Black is equal against White's best play.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 11, 2018

0

#100

Yigor wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

what is the best first chess move?

Imho, in the current state of art, there are 3 clear candidates: 1. d4, 1. e4 and 1. Nf3.

You successfully managed to select the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best choices.

Congratulations!