mayhem in the morra

Sort:
tygxc

#16
"the Morra Gambit (and its cousin 2.c3) are as good as anything else"
++ If black declines the Morra Gambit 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 with 3...d5 or 3...Nf6, then it transposes to the Alapin Variation 2 c3. So from a practical point of view 2 c3 is more efficient than 2 d4. Playing the Morra you have to be prepared to play the Alapin as well, so you can just restrict it to the Alapin. From a theoretical point of view 2 c3 is better as well: it does not lose a pawn and it does not trade a central pawn for a wing pawn as in the Open Sicilian.

gik-tally

here we go again with people parroting grandmasters talking about grandmaster games. at the amateur level, gambits literally decimate! +10% stats, as seen in many top gambits, at the amateur 1600-2000 real world level where this stuff gets played is anything BUT unsound! gambits are where i get all MY ratings points and trying to muddle though foofy positional GM crap (closed/hypermod) is where i lose all my points.

 

here are smith morra's stats:

a 7% winning edge in the mainline is outrageous! GM approved boring safe lines WISH they had these numbers! when i knew a bit of theory, maybe 50 lines, i had close to a 90% win rate in smith morra as a 1650, and in about 50 games, my rating wouls have been over 200 points higher if i only played smith morra. i'm getting my butt handed to me regularly now, but plan on booking up with amateur games.

 

the hannes langrock book has been described as the theory heavy alternative, and esserman's book has been described as more conversational, even entertaining, and emphasizing the ideas behind the opening. if i were to get a book, it would be the hannes langrock one for as much theory to memorize as possible. any positional concepts esserman might try to explain to me would go in one ear and out of the other.

 

if anyone's interested, i'd be happy to share my "based on 1600-2000 performance" theory trees. there would be a lot of out of book theory in it because people generally don't play grandmaster lines, especially in gambits. in looking at notation for the BDG last night, i saw that one of the 2 lines a GM talked about was something like an 8th most popular sideline. the other line was #1, but that left half a dozen lines amateurs play, but GMs ignore.

 

i can't wait to get the morra back down again. there are a few recurring themes i've forgotten like the one involving the knight and queen pin on d or c.

 

just wanted to clear the lie up that gambits are unsound. if you're playing against a GM or engine, yes. against an imperfect human, they are big time spoilers! 

 

my king's gambit stats are something like +55% without any theory, just familiarity

i'm surprised that i've been doing very well with the monte carlo french gambit and blackmar diemer via 1.e4 d5 2.e5!? as well, again, theory free. if you're a tactician like me, gambits are one's life blood and the entire reason for playing to begin with.

 

 

MatthewFreitag
ThrillerFan wrote:

There are many problems with what you are doing:

 

1) That book is WAY too complex and detailed for someone rated anything below 2000 over the board.

2) The Morra Gambit is borderline unsound.

3) You also have to know c3-Sicilian Theory, which is what the Morra transposes to 90% of the time when Black declines the gambit.  Again, you shouldn't even be studying specific openings, but rather, opening concepts.

 

The books you should be "reading" are ones like Play Winning Chess, Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, and Winning Chess Endings by Yasser Sieriwan!

 

If you can't read those because you find it boring or too much work, then chess isn't for you.  Take up Tic Tac Toe.  It's an easier game to master!

Geez dude, why are you so critical??

"Too complex for anyone under 2000 otb" anybody above 1600 on this site could get something out of Mayhem in the Morra.

"Borderline Unsound" is completely wrong. It's a fine gambit that probably just leads to equality.

Your final point is valid; you have to know some alapin theory to play the morra.


With all that aside, there is something worth discussing here. A 1300 doesn't need to spend a ton of time understanding openings.

gik-tally

i feel ya. people really need to stop telling others what they "need to do". chess is a complex chaotic game with no right or wrong approach! karpov might prefer quiet positional lines that grind an opponent down whereas nakumura is just bonkers. both styles win games.

 

me? i'm positionally challenged. everyone that keeps insisting i read "my system" until i understand every concept is full of crap! never going to happen! i know how MY mind works (and doesn't), you don't.  GM parrots give too much bad advice. what works in their world doesn't in ours. 

 

here's a (potentially... might be a real nice guy like spassky) smug grandmaster getting OWNED by a 1700 in the smith morra for perspective

 

a 1700 beats a GM in the Smith Morra Gambit