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

I don't need to prove myself here. I've played hundreds of titled players and analyzed the many of the games with computers. You seem to think that titled players can't play strong enough chess in blitz for them to be instructive. You are entitled to your opinion if you want. You aren't the one writing the course. I found blitz against titled players to be useful.

Indeed you don't, but those here are not obliged to ignore the quality of evidence for claims.

My primary purpose of posting here isn't to persuade people. I wanted practice games against @poucin but it seems that I've gotten caught up into some argument. I should have known better.

I did not write about being instructive. I have asked about the idea of efficiency for finding those tricky moves.

And people may discuss what you want.

Fair point. Anyways, slow games is another way to find tricky moves. I don't want to argue with you about this. I don't consider it to be important as the methods I use seems to work well enough.

Can we assume that there are refutations for everything not played by super top players?

Perhaps some do not volunteer for your project because they do not share your view about what works well enough.

I don't need volunteers. If @poucin thinks that the practice and finding out what the novelty is would be worth the time of playing the games, great. If not, I can go elsewhere. I'm already confident that my line gives Black an advantage. Just wanting more practice, annotated games, and tricky moves to counter. I actually don't need more games to publish my course, but I want to be thorough.

@LogoCzar, just out of curiosity, what is your otb rating? If I may ask!?

My over the board rating is only 2117 USCF, though it's mostly inactive. I work on chess more or less full time. I graduated high school early and am trying to become a professional.

I have no FIDE rating. I'm playing in the National Open (Open section) next month.

I am not aware of anyone saying that you needed to post:

"... 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. ..."

It does seem reasonable to discuss a possible reason for not wanting to be involved in such a project.

Perhaps. Except that you aren't one of the titled players who I'm interested in playing and I've seen no signs that titled players don't want to play me simply because they think blitz is an ineffective method for me to find dangerous moves to counter. Actually, why would they care? They'd probably be interested in playing for different reasons.

I already have 9 titled players on board (plus a GM who's interested in endorsing, though I was advised against this by Chessable staff for financial reasons) for beta-testing, plus titled practice partners for blitz. I had to carefully think before I was even willing to do this, as this novelty is serious business. I'm only okay with playing it now because I will be publishing this summer. Otherwise, I'd likely save it for OTB games (either FIDE or rated USCF against masters).

Well, you have (I assume) seen:

"Some have really problems with good manners here... Why should I play to prove anything? Would games prove something anyway? This is not the way." - IM poucin (~22 hours ago)

Are you sure my ideas are not a more plausible explanation than unwillingness to defend a stance in practice?

Fair point, but he's not going to agree to play me in a slow game, and I wouldn't get enough ideas for the time investment to justify it for the project. That said, playing an IM in a slow game would probably be worth it for other reasons, but I still don't think that's something he'd agree to do.

Also, it's almost besides the point to extrapolate about why one specific person wasn't interested in playing, as if it's a universal reason. There have been other players who were interested in playing, so it's quite likely that he simply wasn't interested and didn't feel enough of an attachment to the Morra to defend his stance in practice.

I didn't clarify why I wanted to play in my first post that he responded to. I clarified that later, so he might have had the wrong impression.

I would be the last to know one way or the other but, in view of what was posted, it seems reasonable to me to discuss why one may not think of blitz games as a way to "defend" a "stance in practice".

That would be instructive, I think, though even if this was something Pfren was interested in doing, I doubt I'd have time to finish the game by the time my course is published. And I don't think Pfren is interested in playing me anyways. If he is interested, perhaps we'll play a CC game.

Correspondence games may be more useful than blitz games (which aren't worth a penny to evaluate any opening position), but still the actual results may well be misleading: Currently, more and more openings which were considered as bad are proven to be objectively playable. The real criterion for labelling an opening as "good" is whether it can be handled well using understanding and sound principles, and not by memorizing one thousand lines and having to deal with irrational positions.

Regarding all that, the Morra is just fine for OTB play, and does not need any deep theoretical knowledge to master.

Most gambits become more and more unsound in higher level play.

Smith -Morgan gambit is better for black side in term of strong play (computer chess level).

As chess is very drawish and one extra pawn is generally not enough to win . (KP v K = draw , KBP v KB = draw , KRPvKR= draw etc). White can play smith morgan  in two reasons,

1. I will take the risk by giving away a pawn and if black cant figure out the best play, I will beat him.

2. If black can figure out, I will be in inferior position but I should be able to drag for draw.

Example of two games of two strongest chess players in the world! 

Love how the topic just transposed to an unsignificant chatter