Is the Smith-Morra Gambit an amateur's opening?

Most of the play e5 repertoire books give Capablanca's idea, probably due to economy since it can be used against the Goring as well, and it's such a simple idea that not many pages need to be written about it.

But White does have some 10th move alternatives, and if the player as Black is higher rated they're faced with a dillema, should they accept the gambit and allow the tactical complications which give a lower rated opponent the best practical chances to win? Or should they use Capablanca's defense and get a drawish position? In most cases a higher rated player would have better endgame technique, but the familiarity the Danish Gambiteer has with the position could make up for this and assuming they've studied and played games in it they'd likely be able to hold the draw.

The Danish is a good opening to have in ones back pocket either for fun games against friends or for serious games against higher rated opponents.

Not following the logic here. If patzers are playing the Morra, why are they winning so much?

I think it does make sense.Don't forget the black players are also equally weak,and between two weak players playing the Morra accepted it makes sense that white will win more often, if anything because the white attack plays itself, plus 

the fact that defensive skills are non-existent at the lower levels.

Well this is what I was arguing earlier -- the Morra is better at an amateur level to answer the topic question.

Not amateur,patzer level,there is a huge difference.

OK. What are the boundaries on patzers and amateurs?

well patzers are just patzers,amateurs are from patzers to GM strength(Jonathan Penrose for example)

Ok, let's go with Anand then and his opinion about 2.d4 (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-01-06/news/36162218_1_veselin-topalov-viswanathan-anand-chess-players/2):

"Well, it's obviously a mistake against c5," he says, "It is just hopeless." Or what about Nigel Short, who apparently once said that believing in Morra compensation is like believing in Santa Claus.

Forget about the quotes though. We should all decide for ourselves whether we want to play the opening. We're not GMs, so the opinion of Larsen, Short, Anand or any other GM is not really that interesting. From all the reading and analyzing I have done I think that if black knows what he is doing and is well-prepared (and he should be, for he might otherwise be in for a nasty surprise), there is no clear benefit for white.

There are a number of interesting videos on chess.com that dig into the more intricate Smith-Morra details. Some of the more useful ones are by Mark Ginsburg (who more or less refuted the opening) and Roman Dzinzichashvilli (who says in one of his videos that the Smith Morra is definitely worth considering and not an opening for black to take lightly):

http://www.chess.com/video/player/best-play-against-the-smith-morra---part-1

http://www.chess.com/video/player/best-play-against-the-smith-morra---part-2

http://www.chess.com/video/player/best-play-against-the-smith-morra---part-3

http://www.chess.com/video/player/the-anti-sicilians---part-4-the-smith-morra-gambit

http://www.chess.com/video/player/the-anti-sicilians---part-5-system-for-black

There are a handful of artcles as well that discuss this opening, two of which are

Gregory Serper: http://www.chess.com/article/view/whos-afraid-of-smith-morra-gambit

Silman: http://www.chess.com/article/view/smith-morra-gambit

It's a nice opening to try so every once in a while. The results can be surprising if black is unprepared.

From all the reading and analyzing I have done I think that if black knows what he is doing and is well-prepared (and he should be, for he might otherwise be in for a nasty surprise), there is no clear benefit for white.

But the Larsen sneer was that White comes out a pawn down from the Morra.

This is not at all the same as "no clear benefit for white," which by the way could be said about any number of lines played by White.

Definitely not a professional's opening, if that answers your question.

At the turn of the previous century and for some decades thereafter, the "professionals" despised the Sicilian Defense:

The Sicilian continued to be shunned by most leading players at the start of the twentieth century, as 1...e5 held centre stage. Capablanca, World Champion from 1921 to 1927, famously denounced it as an opening where "Black's game is full of holes". Similarly, James Mason wrote, "Fairly tried and found wanting, the Sicilian has now scarcely any standing as a first-class defence. ... [It] is too defensive. There are too many holes created in the Pawn line. Command of the field, especially in the centre, is too readily given over to the invading force." Siegbert Tarrasch wrote that 1...c5 "is certainly not strictly correct, for it does nothing toward development and merely attempts to render difficult the building up of a centre by the first player. ... [T]he Sicilian Defence is excellent for a strong player who is prepared to take risks to force a win against an inferior opponent. Against best play, however, it is bound to fail." The Sicilian was not seen even once in the 75 games played at the great St. Petersburg 1914 tournament.

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence

According to GM Larry Christiansen:

In 2011, when preparing for the US Championship, I decided to employ the Morra Gambit as a surprise weapon if given the chance. Marc supplied me with a vast amount of analysis and novelties for that tournament and I became convinced that the gambit was not only dangerous, but perfectly sound.

I don't think the Smith-Morra is the ultimate response to the Sicilian. It's not for everyone nor for all occasions.

But the notions that GM opinion is unified against the Morra or that current GM opinion is the last word are simply wrong.

If I were you,I wouldn't place too much importance on their "opinion".I would rather check to see how many modern GM's actually use the morra against other GM's.I'm afraid close to none!

If I were you, I would reread the wiki quote which stated that leading players shunned the Sicilian Defense in the early 20th century.

I would also strive for a less condescending manner of commenting.

The Smith Morra is the refutation to the sicilian.

Condescending is in the eye of the beholder my friend.And if you want to deify the morra gambit,it's not my problem.I was just indirectly trying to tell you that there are much better openings out there worthy of your time and effort,that's all.

Nowhere have I deified the Morra Gambit. Throughout this discussion I have taken a measured "on one hand, this; on the other hand, that" approach.

Furthermore, in no respect do I need your advice on openings or anything else, so spare me. You are not my friend.

If you have a point to make, make it, but leave me out of it.

I have my differences with pfren, but I think this is a good summation of the Smith-Morra -- assuming there is anyone who considers the Morra a refutation of the Sicilian, which I doubt.

The Morra, as pfren says, is a playable gambit.

It's not for everyone. It's not for every occasion. But at the right time and place, it's playable, even remarkable.

Salute to Marc Esserman. He had the courage and perseverance to perfect the Smith-Morra to the point he could beat grandmasters two or three hundred points over his head.

That ain't hay.

Guess what.You are not my friend either.So spare me your theories and leave me alone.Thank you in advance.