How do I counter the Smith-Morra Gambit?

There are certainly at least two (Dismantling the Sicilian 2ed and Sabotage the Grunfeld), but my point was that nobody thinks this way naturally, i.e. without the engine running in the background.

Both of Kaufman's books (The Kaufman Repertoire and Sabotage the Grunfeld) and Illingsworth's Dismantling the Sicilian frequently refer to centipawn evaluations. I remember Aagaard commenting that this was a developing trend with younger players in conversation, so it is more mainstream than you may think.

True enough. Players might say that “this position looks about +0.4”, but that has a human meaning attached to it: it means White clearly has more than White’s usual opening edge, but they aren’t so much better that Black will have to defend a bad position.

Gut und Verlustnah...

Fischer has played 1. c4 actually very much.

In his later years.

As someone pointed out on a thread, 2 of Fischer's 3 wins as white in the WC match versus Spassky featured 1. c4.

What is the Fischer-Larsen Attack?

Basically, 1. c4, coupled with 1. f4 - both semi-central pawns attacking the center.

carlsen WILL PLAY 1. c4 in his later years, this is a very positional move and requires some distance.

In the same way, Botvinnik and Kasparov - 2 of the 3 or 5 best theoreticians - switched to regular 1. c4 only in their later careers.

1. c4 requires wisdom.

I have it, Fischer had it, but you?

No strong attack for white here, if black plays the right moves.

Instead of Ng4, d5-d4 is the obvious alternative, and on Rxc6, as you suggest, black has Bg4, and then bxc6.

I still guessed black has some advantage, but this seems to peter out into a draw.

Not a rare occurence for a line, where one side could have 40-50cps advantage.

Deeper down the road, this could simply evaporate, if the position is not winning.

Seemingly, in the particular position, white has sufficient compensation in terms of activity/better placement/centralisation.

My point is not for the particular position, however, I have not analysed it deeply, my point is that black is winning or being better in the majority of lines, 60-70% and more, which is statistically relevant.

I am certain both sides could have improved on their play in this line, especially black.

For example, already on move 9, black has much better with b5 instead of Be7, which is too passive.

After 9...b5, I am getting to this line.

Again 50-60cps black edge.

I am certain there are improvements for both sides along the line, but my point is that statistically black performs better.

The few lines that white could get fully equal could hardly warrant playing the gambit.

The few lines that white could get fully equal could hardly warrant playing the gambit.

Well, I just browsed through the posts here and DELIBERATELY skipped Bobby Talparov's comments, they simply make no sense at all.

So, I will not lead a meaningless discussion ad infinitum.

Chess/chess theory changes a lot, and that is more than obvious.

Even comparing current top human to current top engine games(TCEC) makes for a WILD distinction in playing strength and styles.

So, I regard this discussion as closed with an obvious outcome.

Do you know that top human games average number of moves is 45 or so?

Do you know that the same number for TCEC is 75 or so?

Without shuffling.

Certainly, no differences in playing style and game quality.

How could actually the numbers 45 and 75 be different in any way?

Concerning centipawn evaluation, I know of one further book that uses such evaluation, 'The Secret of Chess', but maybe people don't think this is a book.

Everyone thinks in centipawns subconsciously.

Why is there point count in chess after all?

How do you know trading rook for knight is good?

Because you know the rook is 5 points, while the knight 3, right?

How do you know having the bishop pair is good?

Because you know the pair is worth half a pawn material, right?

And the last rule with the specific assessment is mentioned in at least 1000 books.

Of course, no one is using centipawn evaluation, who could?

Trying another line, Nh5 instead of b5 this time.

Black on top again, 60-70cps or so.

Again, there are small factors, there is NO OTHER WAY to evaluate them apart from using centipawns.

Again, it does not make sense white could dream of getting fully equal: 2. d4 is a mistake that annuls white's first move advantage.

3. c3(instead of the drawing Qxd4 capture) is already a bigger mistake, worth around half a pawn or so.

So, white trails down by half a pawn or so in the Smith-Morra.

Whether white could achive draw with perfect play, only the perfect player could tell, and he still has not been born.

For mere mortals like us it is sufficient to say black has the advantage.

Why would I want to play an opening with white that gives black the advantage early on?

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!! FROM SECRET CHESS:

Lyudmil : White playing d4 in Silician is "mistake"..."annuls white's first move advantage"

Knows more than all chess engines and that they are way off...black is at least ahead half a point by taking c pawn.

So now that we shouldnt play d4 as white in the sicilian, per the revolutionary news, are we supposed to play the kings financhetto as the only hope against the siclian?

Indeed, a joke that NO ONE can refute.

This may work, but it's the kind of line where the delay in kingside development scares me a bit as a practical player. Radical stuff like 11.Rfd1!? Qb6 12.Nd5!? (having read Esserman's book, I always check this move ) exd5 12.Bxd5 Bb7 14.e5 Nxd5 15.exd6+ is a little unsettling, although my old Stockfish gives it as equal (+0.1).

I like this approach the most, because I think it is both strong and practical for OTB play. The engines give equality after 14.Bxa6, but I prefer Black's center. The engines seem to agree with deeper analysis as well. I think returning the pawn for a positional advantage simplifies Black's defense. 14.e5!? is the kind of move in the spirit of the Morra that should be checked also, but Black seems to be holding here as well.

In principle, I agree that Black should have the better side of a draw (if there is one with perfect play), but defusing the compensation in analysis has always been a challenge for me.

9...Nh5 seems to be the stronger line.

I am sure both sides could play stronger moves from move 3 through 9.

But I doubt white will fully equalise in the majority of lines.

Simply does not make sense.

After c3 dxc3 Nxc3, white even does not capture with tempo.

Practically I don't know, might be difficult to play, depends on how good you know your setups and what kind of play you prefer: attacking or defensive.

Even if some lines end with 0.0 so soon, right out of the opening, that basically means: not a good opening for white.

Don't have time to check your suggested line on 9...Bb7, 9...Nh5 as said is stronger.

What would you play/what does Esserman suggest there?

Will look at this post again later, just too tired now.

I mostly see it as 40-50cps black advantage, whatever that means.

If that defuses with perfect play ot black gets the upper hand, I have no clue.

As said, the perfect player is around 6000 elos...

On 14. Ba6, which is reasonable, here some funny lines from SF, no time to check them.

I suggested to SF playing d5 instead of e5, which is obviously weak.

Of course, there are many inaccurate moves in this line, just a suggestion.

I don't believe black has that big advantage, but it has SOME, after d5.

d+c vs a+b pawns, quite substabtial positionally, problem is if white manages to compensate in some way.

14. e5 should be losing.

Sf gives above line, which is not optimal, of course, just a suggestion.

But after e5 it is already 2 pawns up with black king fully safe.

Interesting line, but taking the 4 Pawns Attack in the Alekhine approach, white should get substantial advantage.

Other options seem to be much less convincing.