Is the Smith-Morra Gambit a good idea for regular play?

a. If Black plays the Scheveningen lines, Black will later play ...d6 and ...e5, gaining a tempo on White's f4-bishop. It's standard for Black to play ...e5 at some point anyways in these lines to prevent the e5 break, so Bf4 loses a tempo.

b. Black can afford to spend a tempo on ...a6 to prevent Nb5 as he will regain that tempo with ...Nge7-g6 in the near future, sidestepping the critical Bg5 lines. Black isn't scared of Bd6 because after ...Bxd6 followed by ...Qe7, White has insufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Since Black will consolidate his ...Ng6 setup where White has no pawn breaks, White will have insufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. ...Nge7 should be met with Bg5 according to Esserman, as Black's setup can consolidate the extra pawn otherwise and White would be struggling to show even half a pawn's worth of compensation.

As far as I'm concerned, 6.Bf4 may not be something ambitious, but it certainly is not weaker than 6.Bc4.

As far as I'm concerned, Black is at =+ minimum after 6.Bf4. Perhaps you are correct, I might be missing something. How can White equalize after 6.Bf4 a6?

To be fair, White is objectively worse after 6.Bc4, so you might be right. 6.Bf4 seems to give up hope of full compensation immediately, while after 6.Bc4, Black has to prove that he knows his stuff.

I think the point is its too vague to tell. For your plan BTW....heres an engine result of the engine playing itself. I didnt wait to see if it was game over or not.

Thanks. I know that the engine thinks that 7.0-0 is fine, but when you play some moves on the board, it's preference for Black grows. This is because White isn't fighting Black's consolidation plan. IM Marc Esserman considers 7.Bg5 to be forced.

I'm confident with my evaluations, I spent dozens of hours analyzing the Morra. That's not why I commented. I am interested in playing strong titled players in blitz matches in my line, especially those that think the Smith-Morra is fine for White and are willing to defend their stance in practice. If @poucin or @pfren aren't interested, I can look elsewhere.

I'm willing to reveal my novelty, but not in this thread. Only in practice for the time being, as I would get something out of showing it.

Is blitz a way to determine what works "in practice"?

Blitz allows a large sample size faster than standard. I don't expect a huge sample size in standard for some time as it involves an early novelty.

Is sample size the only consideration?

No. I'm also making a course on this and would like to annotate games if they are relevant. If my opponent plays something that I haven't prepared, I can analyze it after the match and add it to the course.

In a slow game, is it more likely to see a move worthy of analysis?

Engines can often find the best moves, but IMs and GMs can find tricky moves that aren't the engine's top suggestions (even in blitz). I want to find out what those are so that I can prepare for those also.

I'm playing another match with @Yaacovn tomorrow in the Morra. He will be preparing as I told him what line I plan to play.

This is the current thumbnail. The course will be released on Chessable.com.

Are they more likely to be found in slow games or in blitz?

Assuming a sample size of one game of blitz vs. 1 game of slow chess, slow chess will be more representative. But it's just not efficient enough for what I'm trying to do here.

7.0-0 is a mistake that GM Alexander Lenderman made against me (in rated blitz). I got a position that was up a clear pawn (approximately -1.5 according to the engine) before it erupted into madness after I played inaccurately. I was winning for most of the game but prematurely liquidated into an equal queen endgame where he outplayed me into time pressure. Presumably, he wasn't expecting 6...Nge7. 6...a6 is supposedly the more accurate move order, where 7.0-0 is the correct move.

What good is efficiency if the result is efficiently produced, inferior moves?

You spent a long time analyzing the opening so you want to play strong players... in blitz?!

If I thought I was ahead of known (published) theory I'd want something closer to an ICCF style match with Pfren, not a blitz game lol.

Although I suppose you did offer a basic line you'll play and say to prepare.

I'm not sure that you understand how strong IMs and GMs can be at blitz. They can find strong continuations that would likely be candidate moves in slow chess, even if they aren't going to be played all of the time. A large sample size of blitz games can reveal a lot of gold.

Oh ok, so you want them more as training games for yourself, not a strict theoretical discussion.

I did deep analysis in an attempt to refute (force a clear Black advantage) the Morra. I'd like to play this OTB. I'm publishing an Anti-morra course on Chessable later this summer and want to improve the course with annotated games. Another advantage of playing blitz against IMs and GMs in this line is that they might find holes that need analysis. I'm confident that there are no early improvements for White, but that doesn't mean there aren't tricky moves that I failed to cover.