smith-mora gambit

I have been playing chess for about 50 yrs (off and on) and since I've been on Chess.com (about 1 1/2 yrs now) I've "stumbled" on a rather courious opening called the Smith-Mora gambit (1.e4 c5  2.d4 cxd 3.c3 dxc 4. Nxc) I have had pretty good success with it and I was just wondering if anyone else was familiar with it and what their opinion was of it

Poor players usually take the bait, but most higher level players tend to avoid it and head for the 2. c3 Sicilian transposition by playing 3...Nf6

Before anyone dismisses the Morra, they should see Hannes Langrock's book, " The Modern Morra Gambit: A Dynamic Weapon Against the Sicilian". There's a minefield for black because of white's relentless development. The knight sac on d5 is an ever-present threat. All in all, I know when someone plays 3...c3, I take on principle, and know I'm in for a slug-fest.

Most of the people I've used it against will take the gambit....if you're quick to get your rooks on the open files then I've found my chances of winning are around 60%.  I usually play the French defense against e4 so I can't really comment from the opposite side of the fence, but as far as the Smith-Mora goes...I love it!  Very good point chopwood - it does seem most of white's advantage comes from the superior development.  Thanks everyone for your comments!  Most helpful (one of the things I love about Chess.com)!

I don't know if 3...Nf6 is the best answer to the Morra, but surely enough it's the most economical one. Why work on a second opening when some 70% of the good schoolboys play the (objectively best) 2...Nf6 against the Alapin and are well prepared to it?

the smith what? :P

if you want dubious, play the sicilian wing gambit (1. e4 c5 2. b4?). a lot of low level sicilian players never knew what hit them.

Don't get me wrong. I used to play the SMG and had quite a few exciting games, mostly wins. But after I started playing A-Players & Experts, I found very few would take the bait. I even tried to learn the c3 (Alapin) Sicilian to hone the SMG declined skills, but I didn't like it too much.

Boy!! this is great!  I didn't think about opening any worm cans.  Like I said in my first post, I've been playing for about 50 yrs - all self-taught; some experience with players about 1800 (USCF rating).  I have seen players go with 3...Nf6 but only after taking the gambit and i usually develop B-g5 with some success.  The hardest time I seem to have is when someone plays e6 for some reason.  Like I said this is good stuff and some real food for thought.  THX DrSpudnik and pfren!

I think it's crap. Accept the gambit and it's white who is playing for a draw. If you have confidence in your tactics and spend some study examining the main lines there isnt much to fear. Worst case scenario you pitch the pawn back later in the game.

3...Qa5 looks interesting, however I always accept the gambit

The first I heard of it was some obscure reference to it in Chess Life.  It was a comment posted on a game submitted to them.  The comment made was that most players cannot lay off the gambit and so far that's been pretty much what's happened - but who am I to say?  To me it's been pretty amazing. Coincediently, if black replies to my e4 with e5 - for me it's Ruy Lopez all the way.  Easy-pleezy........Lemon squeezy :) 

http://www.chessvictory.com/SmithMorra.pdf

thanks for the info trigs - thanks for your input as well, diogens

I just played aganinst it 2 days ago the Chicago defense always backs me up i've come across the smith more somewhat alot (not lately inthe pass year or so) and I've only loss one game against it I certainly would never play it myself.

That's a very good choice- especially if you are an Accelerated Dragon player.

Anyway, how can white avoid being worse in the old mainline? Langrock in his old book (I don't have the 2011 edition) suggests 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd4 3.c3 dc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Rd1 e5 10.Be3 (10.h3 is nowadays regarded as just a waste of time) 0-0 11.b4!? Bg4 12.a3! Rc8 13.Rac1 Bxf3!? (all puncuation marks by Lanrgock, not me) 14.gf3 Nh5 15.Qd2! (to prevent ...Bg5) Nd4!? 16.Bxd4 he fails to mention the simple 16...ed4! where white has scored a remarkable 0% in three recent correspondence games. Now 17.Nd5 Bg5 18.f4 Bh6 is horrible for white, while 17.Ne2 Bf6 or 17...Rc7!? (intending Qc8) is not rosy at all, either.

When the Morra was still played at the master level (e.g. by GM Milan Matulovic) it was believed that if Black is forced to play ...e5 and weaken the d5 square, that would be a fatal positional concession. Currently, Black deliberately goes for the d6/e5 central fomation in many respectable variations, without having any material gain!

Okay, look.  I realize that I'm a lower rated player and more than likely always will be.  I have tried other lines against the Sicilian with some success or wih no success.  I simply have found that most of the players I confront will take the gambit.  I usually follow with B-c4 and sometimes - not always Q-b3. I castle quickly kingside and try to get my rooks on the open lines.  I have not found it to be a bunch of crap.  What I have found is that - for me - it is the best line and I agree with you Estragon about gaining only a single tempo. The pawn usually comes back to me somewhere mid-game but the biggest advantage I seem to have is that Black's forces are usually scattered and with quick attacks I seem to come out for the better. But, again, who am I to say?  I do thank everyone for their helpful suggestions/ideas. 

Thanks IM pfren. You have filled the very hole in my analysis that I needed. I have long ago settled on the classical variation by Langrock's own analysis. It's still very tricky, and I think that against a good tactical player as white, a lesser defense by black will land the second player in terrible trouble. I'll take your advice in my next tournament game. Jack

Jack, I do not know what Langrock suggests in the second edition of his Morra book. I do not have it, and I do not intend to buy it (money supply here has severely shortened).

I just know that when looking at the first edition, I was rather shocked by his recommended moves: First playing b4 and a3 without Black having made any commitment to the queenside, and then going to plain crazy: weakening the kingside and making absurd queen moves, just for the sake of a potential attack in the center and queenside. This somehow had to be bad apart from illogical, and IMO the move I suggested before (16...ed4!) kills the whole variation: White is in a bad shape, period.

You are probably right, but Langrock is an FIDE master, so I have taken his book seriously. Your comments will help me- I have tried the Chicago Defense and other variations , but his analysis of the classical line sounds like Black's best shot, and your addition makes me feel confident that I can at least put up a good fight. Jack

Jack have you ever heard of the finegold or the evans defense these defenses praticaly refuted if not actually did refute the morra.