Reversed Smith-Morra against the English opening

Playing the Reversed Smith-Morra gambit (or the Trojan gambit as I like to call it) against the English opening can be very effective. Many natural moves and development strategies can backfire quickly and get White into trouble. Here is a couple of interesting traps.

If you'd be interested in learning more traps, I also made a video analysis here:

In your example games white just has no idea how to play the sicilian. He's playing an e3 + g3 structure (it's an almost nonexistent idea in the sicilian). That sort of incompetence is not something you can count on with English players, alot of them are sicilian players. They're often aware that's a reversed sicilian.

The Smith Morra is already quite bad for white, and what little value it does have relies on whites early initiative. As black you've sacrificed a pawn and you don't have adequate early initiative. It's quite a bad idea, tbh.

The amount of "initiative" white gets in the Smith Morra is very misunderstood. The move c3 is a use of tempo. Nxc3 doesn't gain initiative, it breaks even. The small initiative gain in the Smith Morra comes from:

a) the c3 pawn being liquidated, opening up the c file and the diagonal for the queen. Unfortunately for white, it's usually black trying to open up the c file and rarely does the queen use the diagonal. Infact, whites inability to queenside castle actually slows him down. The availability of Bc2 at some point is the only realistic use of liquidating c3.

b) the knight remaining on the kingside at f3 (it didn't take back Nxd4). The "initiative" here is only slightly significant. It allows white to play Ng5 or Ne5 as part of an early kingside attack. Of course, Nd4 isn't useless in attacks either, and if you wanted to push f4 it'd have been better to just play Nd4 and queenside castle. So your only sensible option is to not push f4, but play Nf3 immediately, and it will lead to a slightly earlier kingside attack, but one which if handled properly will fizzle out quickly (it's not backed by pawns and white has castled kingside)

The worst of it is, since black is up a pawn, he can often just not worry about pushing d5 and develop his pieces (sort of saving him a tempo). You can't bind him with c4. i.e. you are in a way giving black tempo in the line as well. It really comes down to the early kingside attack and if that doesn't succeed you should have played another line.

As black playing a "Reversed Smith Morra" you simply aren't going to translate this small initiative on the kingside into an early kingside mating attack. What will happen is white will just consolidate, be up a pawn, very easily push d5 and open the center up... and you will just be roasted turkey.

Well I guess with such deep understanding any opponent playing any gambit against you would be turned into a roasted turkey hopefully you'll make it far and get a title someday.

For me, chess is more about having fun catching people off guard with offbeat openings. I mean, take for example Eric Rosen and Stafford gambit - it's way more dubious gambit but it still works for him in blitz most of the times.

I think the video link is not working, I'll try to repost the video analysis here, sorry about that.

I like offbeat openings. My main line as white is very offbeat...

But if I'm going to play offbeat I want to be confident it will surprise the opponent. In this case... I think it's a good guess that it won't surprise the opponent, since English players often play the sicilian as black. I also just don't think it's very good. Playing offbeat requires some insight into the opponents psychology.

I already bash on the Smith Morra for white, but as black... well, in this line, it's more like you're becoming turkey sausage which has been ground into a paste, mixed with fillers such as turkey and chicken tendons, then revitalized with turkey colored food die and added to the menu as turkey nuggets, is more your situation.

Why do you insist on supporting your unsound openings by giving weak moves for the opponent as justification?
White has no reason to give black compensation by playing dxc6. Why not 3 Nf3, attacking the pawn on e5? Black has no adequate way to guard e5. 4...e4 5 Nxe4 cxd5 6 Nc3 does not work. You don't even have any pieces out for that pawn. There's 6 ...d4 7 Nb5 Nc6 8 Qa4 Bb4 9 a3 followed by Nbxd4, for example.

The developing 4...Bd6 allows d2-d4, and black is left scratching his head on why he threw away a pawn for nothing. Black not only is a pawn down, but is MUCH worse.

There's no way to make your move work.

What I'm doing is showing little known openings that are rich in traps. Very often the most played lines get them into trouble. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that dubious openings can be refuted. I still choose to play them, explore them, discover and share them with others. It brings me joy

I also play it, but the problem is that many English players don't capture the second pawn on c6, and they force you into the mess of the Slav Exchange.

That's why I think in the long run it's more effective to play 1. c4 e5 with Black than to go for this inverted Morra variation for the reasons mentioned, because many players won't capture the pawn on c6, so they won’t fall into your psychological game.

Memorizing and studying gambits thoroughly is the best way to destabilize those flat minds from the academy who follow the established rules because they lack an inner, rebellious voice.

Obviously, the best strategy against most players who follow the general rules like playing the Italian, the Spanish, the English, etc., is to use openings that create chaos.

The more chaos, the better. It's a bit like how Napoleon won that battle of Austerlitz, stepping out of the established war manuals.

If everyone does the same thing, you have to do the opposite

It's always amusing hearing Smith Morra players claim their opening is creative / interesting. The Smith Morra is not new or surprising. It just seems that way to people who don't know the sicilian theory. In reality people play it to avoid having to learn theory, that is the main reason. Or because they've been fooled into thinking it's creative. By the time development is complete the main line leads to one of the most common positions seen by Sicilian players (if not the most common), due to the fact a) it's a move 2 deviation, b) it leads to the same position ~85% of the time, something I'm not sure happens in any other sicilian line. Because white really can't do much but attack the kingside immediately. The response to the Smith Morra is the most formulaic response I have against any anti-sicilian.

If you play something other than the main line it's better... your line could possibly be creative, but that's another matter. You can be creative within any line, but merely playing the Smith Morra is not creative.

To be creative you have to know what you're doing first. Otherwise you're essentially taking a dump in a box and calling it art. There are 'artists' who do this sort of thing but they're usually far more interested in being artists than producing art.

You play the Smith Morra as black which... is just the Smith Morra as black. If the white version of it is bad what do you think the black version of it is like?

I have to agree with this. Being down a pawn and a tempo isn’t something you should strive for otherwise you’re just playing “hope” chess. I do like the reverse Sicilian against the English however. It is just a somewhat offbeat response and you still get a solid position. The English really isn’t too much to stress about imo, the better player will win or it’s a draw with decent play.

Reversed sicilian is my main line against the English. It's a good line. There's even a gambit line I like in it. Gambits can be viable for black, they just need a different type of compensation. For example, some chance of regaining the pawn, significant gains of tempos or slow development by the opponent, a very novel position with a high degree of complexity, etc.. They shouldn't rely almost entirely on early initiative and an early kingside attack on move 2 the way something like the Smith Morra does. The compensation in the Smith Morra is alot less than most players assume it is, for reasons I explained above. Liquidating c3 isn't very useful. It provides less than a tempos worth of compensation. TBH, it might not even provide any tempo, because black doesn't have to play d5 or d6, he essentially gains a tempo.

And there's also the fact these lines are known...

If you want a good gambit in the English this Adhiban gambit line is much better. Black is outscoring white by about 59% to 33% here. Because he actually gets compensation in the form of forcing multiple knight moves -

If you did really want to make this "Smith Morra" style work you'd be much better off waiting until white plays g3 first, i.e.

Still dubious but not horrendous, I wouldn't openly mock the idea since at least white is slowed by the fiancetto here. I would play c3 to maintain the center instead, but you could do this I suppose.

Then you'd just need something against the Carls-Bremen system, where I'd recommend playing the Smyslov, which is just a reversed Rossolimo that's almost totally equal -