Fighting the Sicilian With The Grand Prix Attack...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/fighting-the-sicilian-with-the-grand-prix-attack
check GM Hikaru Nakamura and IM Levy Rozman's commentary on the GPA @32:11 of the following video...noting particularly what he has to say about focusing on the IDEAS of the opening...
HONOR THE JEROME!! Intermediate Opening Tier List: Part 2 - GMHikaru...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCVdrmKHdiI
Magnus crushed Kramnik with a6, that doesn't make it good. You can take literally any line in chess and cherry pick instances where someone is crushing someone else with it, it is meaningless. You can also choose almost any line and if you study it deeply you will do well with it for a while. But you are not Esserman (who is only an IM). What you're ignoring are the many more times people are getting crushed in the same line, which we can simply see in the stats... no speculation needed. Looking at your games I don't see any where you've played the sicilian as black, either. Which means you have a very poor understanding of the opening. Numerous black players are telling you how easy it is for them to respond to the SM, and yet you continue to... ignore them and advertise it. Like you're running TV ads for it. I've noticed SM players tend to do this alot. Mystery as to why. If you were smart, you'd realize that the black sicilian players know something you don't.
Ok, quick question.
Why on Earth would I play main line Sicilians when the SMG gives me some of my best over all results?
If I were to ask you to ditch openings that you use that give you the best win/lose ratio, you'd probably quite rightly tell me to do one!
Pretty much 60% win ration when accepted:
Almost 60% wins whether the gambit is accepted or not:
I agree in as much as the stats speak for themselves.
Learning how to play the sicilian in a serious way is better in the long run. When you're 1500 the goal isn't generally to get wins immediately, it's to improve as a player. But if you want quick wins it's fine, just quit annoyingly advertising your line as if it is something profound and magical, when in reality it is just something that doesn't require much understanding for you to play. You are just promoting and celebrating your ignorance. The SM is meant to be played in shame, knowing you could have aspired to better. It really is just a cheesy line that black has multiple simple, reliable ways of responding to. The slower the time format and the higher the rating, the better black is performing.
And it isn't a surprising line, either. That's the other thing I hear, that you are "throwing off" the opponent. It is actually the opposite.
Btw, Nakamura plays everything. So does Magnus. Go look at their game stats. It looks like an opening explorer.
I very much doubt that the reason I'm a 1500-1600 rated is because I'm winning 60% of my games with the Morra.
Do some research and look at Mayhem in the Morra would be my suggestion. Maybe then, like the GMs who have actually looked at Esserman's work, you might be less closed-minded about both the opening and Black's defensive tries.
There is simply no refutation, once the gambit pawn is accepted. And if declined, White can achieve a decent balanced position, and certainly not be worse out of the opening. The Alapin is the most common result of the declined, and that's obviously ok for both players.
I'd say that the King's Gambit (Bishop's Gambit) is more dubious than the Morra, yet no-one seems to get on their high horses about that!
It's a strawman response. There doesn't need to be a refutation for it to be bad for white - there merely needs to be easy equality for black, stats showing black winning more games than white, an easy way of avoiding it (c3), or better alternatives (which there are)...
Until you know how to play the sicilian as black there's no reason your commentary on it should be taken very seriously You simply don't have the perspective to give informed commentary. I do acknowledge that the SM provides an easy, low-theory way of getting wins for players just starting out who want to focus on other things. That may make it practical, but it is not ideal, and not good in the long term. The reason you're 1500 is you're bad in multiple areas, and of course you can win games with any opening, but we're in an opening forum and our goal is to think critically about openings. We're here to discriminate between openings. That's the purpose of our being here.
I'm not asking for you to take me seriously. I'm asking you to look at the games and work of IM Esserman seriously.
I really don't care whether you think I should be playing this opening rather than that opening. I play the Morra because I enjoy my games when using it, and most of the time I win.
That argument has already been addressed. As pfren pointed out, Magnus and Nakamura routinely win with the bongcloud at top level. It says more about the significance of the opening itself than it does the bongcloud. But if you study a line very deeply, as Esserman has, you're going to do well with it. That's the nature of chess. Already been explained but needs repeating apparently.
Again, the value of the SM (maybe it's only value) is it allows the players repertoire to be more focused, i.e. they can study less. Again, a practical consideration. There are many better alternatives if you want to play that way. b3 is more interesting than the SM. Esserman is one player, not even a GM, you are not him, and you've ignored all the other high level players the vast majority of whom play the open lines, the closed sicilian, or one of the numerous more interesting and less predictable anti-sicilians... You've ignored the fact that, as elo climbs and time formats move from bullet to rapid, the number of SM games trails off dramatically and the winrates plummet. What that shows is a consensus gathered from all high-level players, based on experience, that the line is lackluster. So we do not need to rely on 1 random IMs opinion. There is even an IM in this thread who has expressed skepticism of the line.
Next time I play as Black against a Super GM in Titled Tuesday, I promise I'll play a closed Siclian at the very earliest opportunity
Until then, I'll just have to try to enjoy my 60% win ratio.
And that's fine, you can do that, just stop advertising the line like it's something incredible when you just found an easy way to play that doesn't require you to understand the sicilian any further. We're here to understand the opening, not to promote more mass confusion. If you had said from the beginning - yeah the SM may not be the ideal line, but it reduces the amount of theory I need and it can lead to cheesy tactical wins - well there would have been much less to disagree with. Though there are still better anti-sicilians.
I Love the SM, and I take it one step further from not the best to alright dubious:
I've played this variation I dubbed the Adkins Attack and have enjoyed success with it, even beating a CM with this opening in 18 moves! The game went like this:
I also beat an FM with this f4 push in the opening:
And drew another FM with the same idea:
So this f4 idea I have in the Smith Morra Gambit should be something to take seriously.
I Love the SM, and I take it one step further from not the best to alright dubious:
I've played this variation I dubbed the Adkins Attack and have enjoyed success with it, even beating a CM with this opening in 18 moves! The game went like this:
I also beat an FM with this f4 push in the opening:
And drew another FM with the same idea:
So this f4 idea I have in the Smith Morra Gambit should be something to take seriously.
Can you explain what you gain by f4 here in the SM over any other line that pushes f4?
- you liquidated the pawn on c3. You did not exactly gain tempo, because you used a tempo playing c3. You gained liquidation of the pawn on c3, or opening c2 for free if you want to think of it that way. To realize the gain of tempo, you must actually use the open c2 diagonal. Which you never used, you never played Bc2 or Qc2... or used the queen on that diagonal.
Looking at your last game (haven't watched the others):
- your knight remains on the kingside in the SM. That's unique in SM, it can lead to some kingside tactics early on, but the initiative for this fizzled out (you're slow pushing f4), and eventually you did play Nxd4 anyway. So no advantage there. And if you want f4 > a kingside knight, you could just play another line, like 2. f4
- the structure in this game really resembles a french, but without a c3 pawn, a critical pawn in that structure. You can reach a similar, roughly equal french-like structure via 2. f4 if you want that, without the loss of the critical c3 pawn. Instead you liquidated that pawn, so you had no support for the d4 pawn. That's bad in a french structure, you don't want that.
In the 2nd to last game you showed, d4 outright falls because you have no c3 pawn. In a normal french, you'd have been able to prevent that. You climb back into the game due to superior middle and endgame technique, not because of your opening. You were worse out of the opening.
What did playing c3 gain you? The answer is not tempo. As far as I can tell, in all 3 of the games you posted, the answer is nothing. You are playing a handicapped version of 2. f4 where you get a worse french-like structure, scoring well with it due to your skill as a player, but not because it's a good line. It doesn't make sense, your line.
In the 2nd game from the top - once again, good tactical awareness but the liquidation of the c pawn did not contribute to your position in any way, shape, or form. You can get the same greek gifts in the french, and after 2. f4.
You can also get similar kingside-pushes in the closed sicilian.
Even if you sac the c pawn for no reason at all, and play a worse version of structures you could get elsewhere.. you're still gonna have opportunities, it's a very dynamic opening. And if you play well, you'll win and believe you're onto something.
Pretty much 60% win ratio when accepted:
By your own rationale, 1.d4 & 1.e4 are dubious.
it's yours.
A sledgehammer perhaps?
I Love the SM, and I take it one step further from not the best to alright dubious:
I've played this variation I dubbed the Adkins Attack and have enjoyed success with it, even beating a CM with this opening in 18 moves! The game went like this:
I also beat an FM with this f4 push in the opening:
And drew another FM with the same idea:
So this f4 idea I have in the Smith Morra Gambit should be something to take seriously.
Can you explain what you gain by f4 here in the SM over any other line that pushes f4?
- you liquidated the pawn on c3. You did not exactly gain tempo, because you used a tempo playing c3. You gained liquidation of the pawn on c3, or opening c2 for free if you want to think of it that way. To realize the gain of tempo, you must actually use the open c2 diagonal. Which you never used, you never played Bc2 or Qc2... or used the queen on that diagonal.
Looking at your last game (haven't watched the others):
- your knight remains on the kingside in the SM. That's unique in SM, it can lead to some kingside tactics early on, but the initiative for this fizzled out (you're slow pushing f4), and eventually you did play Nxd4 anyway. So no advantage there. And if you want f4 > a kingside knight, you could just play another line, like 2. f4
- the structure in this game really resembles a french, but without a c3 pawn, a critical pawn in that structure. You can reach a similar, roughly equal french-like structure via 2. f4 if you want that, without the loss of the critical c3 pawn. Instead you liquidated that pawn, so you had no support for the d4 pawn. That's bad in a french structure, you don't want that.
In the 2nd to last game you showed, d4 outright falls because you have no c3 pawn. In a normal french, you'd have been able to prevent that. You climb back into the game due to superior middle and endgame technique, not because of your opening. You were worse out of the opening.
What did playing c3 gain you? The answer is not tempo. As far as I can tell, in all 3 of the games you posted, the answer is nothing. You are playing a handicapped version of 2. f4 where you get a worse french-like structure, scoring well with it due to your skill as a player, but not because it's a good line. It doesn't make sense, your line.
In the 2nd game from the top - once again, good tactical awareness but the liquidation of the c pawn did not contribute to your position in any way, shape, or form. You can get the same greek gifts in the french, and after 2. f4.
You can also get similar kingside-pushes in the closed sicilian.
Even if you sac the c pawn for no reason at all, and play a worse version of structures you could get elsewhere.. you're still gonna have opportunities, it's a very dynamic opening. And if you play well, you'll win and believe you're onto something.
I don't play Chess to make complete sense, I play Chess for fun. If there is a line I'm scoring well with and have attacking chances, I play it. I don't want to be trapped by what's best or what variation of an opening is the best in theory, I just want to have fun, it's a game after all! None of my openings are the best, The Alekhine's, the Budapest, I play f4 as white basically every game, look at what I play against the main defense of e4:
Noticing a theme here? I play dubious, maybe not the best, I agree the Smith Morra is practically speaking not as good as the Closed Sicilian for white, but it's fun, and I'll play what suits me. You can play what you prefer, I play what I like. And like you said, if I can win a majority of my games consistently in a worst position in the opening, that's a good sign lol so I'll take it.
I like suboptimal, novel lines as much as the next person... but I wouldn't play a move that just leads to a worse version of some other position, with no discernable form of compensation for doing so. I think my e4 repertoire is actually more unusual than yours. I don't even play e4 anymore though, I play 1. Nc3. There is a rationale for why it's beneficial to play this way, though. I don't see why you'd just abandon the reasoning process, there's no need.
No offense, but I think you just would rather cling to the line you came up with than learn something, or recognize it's a worse version of 2. f4.
...And it isn't a surprising line, either. That's the other thing I hear, that you are "throwing off" the opponent. It is actually the opposite...
It seems to be fairly rare at the intermediate level.
As an objective small sample, I looked at my last 5 opponents who played the Sicilian.
The move 2.d4(!x100) is quite uncommon.
Of this sample of the top 5 responses to 1...c5 the Morra 2.d4 was played 86/1093 moves.
This is about 7.9%. If we take all the other responses left our of the sample from the explorer, there is no doubt that the Morra Accepted or Declined would feature in around 5% or so of the games that these Siclian players play.
That, to me, is likely to throw the Black player off. From a practicle point of view, the majority of my opponents hesitate after 3.c3, showing that they are unsure of the opening.
So, in short, at intermediate level at least, you seem to be plain wrong in your assumption.
So are you suggesting i play this?
If you want to slow push with f4 > Nf3 that line or the closed sicilian both work. I'm suggesting you either play one of those, or come up with some reason that clearing the c pawn is worth doing. From the games you posted I don't see any. If you used the diagonal that'd be a reason, but you never did. You lost the central pawn due to lacking the c pawn. So yeah, that is my point.
What about this:
The c pawn is clear, so my dark squares bishop has a nice diagonal, and my rook takes the open c-file.
I don't like blacks monster Kan bishop eyeing your king in that position. You'll open up both sides of the board along with your king and I think the position is very flimsy.
If I had no choice but to play your f4 SM line, I would probably play that continuation with ideas of pushing e5, then possibly playing Bc2 > Qd3 to form a battery. Or even Rc1 > Bb1. I wouldn't want to waste too much time with a3, and a3/b4 allows him to further open the board and I think could expose too many vulnerabilities in your position. But if black wants to trade off that valuable bishop, let him, your kings diagonal will be less dangerous. Of course, the battery may not arise in all games but at least the strong hint of it is there. To maintain a strong edge black has to play Ng4 in this position, but many players probably won't do that.
I don't want to make the idea sound good because I really find it very dubious, but you've already acknowledged that.
The engine likes this line, which makes sense because it prepares to counter Bf5, and prepares the diagonal-
That continuation I might prefer if black were only playing Bf5, but a3 is a slow move and while it's good against Bf5, it allows black to just play something else like d5 immediately and trade off the queens, not what you want when you've already sacrificed a pawn.
...And it isn't a surprising line, either. That's the other thing I hear, that you are "throwing off" the opponent. It is actually the opposite...
It seems to be fairly rare at the intermediate level.
As an objective small sample, I looked at my last 5 opponents who played the Sicilian.
The move 2.d4(!x100) is quite uncommon.
What you fail to understand is that a move 2 deviation is almost always going to be more common than a move 7 or 8 deviation, because the move tree grows exponentially in size with each move.
The lichess statistics show for 1400 level, 8% of sicilian games are SM, so this is expected. 5 out of 50ish games at move 2 is a common line if it doesn't branch out much afterwards. White has to play the SM in a particular way or accept an objectively bad position, due to the pawn sac, and his remaining pawn structure.
While it's true that about 50% of games feature 2. Nf3, depending on what black plays that's going to differentiate much further. For example, there are 10 ways white can respond to the Najdorf. One of them, h3, is called the Adams attack. At 1400 level, 3% of white players play the Adams attack in response to the Najdorf.
Furthermore, there are variations within the Adams attack (unlike the SM, where there aren't alot of viable ones). One continuation involves playing Nde2 after black bumps the knight with e5. Here, about 18% of 1400 players are playing that move.
So when you multiply all these fractions together, 0.5 * 0.03 * 0.18 - you wind up with 0.2% - 1 in 500 games at 1400 reach the particular version of the Adams attack white has played. Compared to the SM, which is at about 8% of games, and in 90% of games development proceeds along the predictable lines - it's about 40x more common than this line in the Adams attack.
Black will know how to respond to the SM before the particular line in the Adams attack.
Most sicilian variations are like this, the move tree grows exponentially. This is a major reason that anti-sicilians are not as surprising as people think they are, compared to the alternatives. Infact, they are usually more predictable.
Magnus crushed Kramnik with a6, that doesn't make it good. You can take literally any line in chess and cherry pick instances where someone is crushing someone else with it, it is meaningless. You can also choose almost any line and if you study it deeply you will do well with it for a while. But you are not Esserman (who is only an IM). What you're ignoring are the many more times people are getting crushed in the same line, which we can simply see in the stats... no speculation needed. Looking at your games I don't see any where you've played the sicilian as black, either. Which means you have a very poor understanding of the opening. Numerous black players are telling you how easy it is for them to respond to the SM, and yet you continue to... ignore them and advertise it. Like you're running TV ads for it. I've noticed SM players tend to do this alot. Mystery as to why. If you were smart, you'd realize that the black sicilian players know something you don't.
Ok, quick question.
Why on Earth would I play main line Sicilians when the SMG gives me some of my best over all results?
If I were to ask you to ditch openings that you use that give you the best win/lose ratio, you'd probably quite rightly tell me to do one!
Pretty much 60% win ration when accepted:
Almost 60% wins whether the gambit is accepted or not:
I agree in as much as the stats speak for themselves.
Learning how to play the sicilian in a serious way is better in the long run. When you're 1500 the goal isn't generally to get wins immediately, it's to improve as a player. But if you want quick wins it's fine, just quit annoyingly advertising your line as if it is something profound and magical, when in reality it is just something that doesn't require much understanding for you to play. You are just promoting and celebrating your ignorance. The SM is meant to be played in shame, knowing you could have aspired to better. It really is just a cheesy line that black has multiple simple, reliable ways of responding to. The slower the time format and the higher the rating, the better black is performing.
And it isn't a surprising line, either. That's the other thing I hear, that you are "throwing off" the opponent. It is actually the opposite.
Btw, Nakamura plays everything. So does Magnus. Go look at their game stats. It looks like an opening explorer.
I very much doubt that the reason I'm a 1500-1600 rated is because I'm winning 60% of my games with the Morra.
Do some research and look at Mayhem in the Morra would be my suggestion. Maybe then, like the GMs who have actually looked at Esserman's work, you might be less closed-minded about both the opening and Black's defensive tries.
There is simply no refutation, once the gambit pawn is accepted. And if declined, White can achieve a decent balanced position, and certainly not be worse out of the opening. The Alapin is the most common result of the declined, and that's obviously ok for both players.
I'd say that the King's Gambit (Bishop's Gambit) is more dubious than the Morra, yet no-one seems to get on their high horses about that!