Smith-Morra Gambit

Fromper, I think the SMG is an interesting practical choice. As an occasional Sicilian player, I don't enjoy seeing it on the board and have rather poor results against it.

As per your request for reference material in the Alapin, Play the c3 sicilian by Rozentalis is a solid work, and Tiviakov, an world specialist, has issued a DVD for ChessBase

Here's my game against Graw81, with my annotation. I lost, but it was a good learning experience for me.

I would probably have played 8.OO. It is more flexible. I can see some lines where d2 could be a better place for the queen since Black has commited to this piece alignment, which has potential to be weak at the axis point e6. By placing the rooks on the e+d files instead of the normal c+d, there may be long range benefits for White.

This comes to my whole point, the White arrangement is fluid and dynamic and Black is committed. That means that once you decided to attack something, whether the kindside or center, Black may not be able to react as quickly. Also, just because you lose a game or two does not mean a line is bad. Think of learning a new opening like trying to speak a new language, you will stumble through it for a period of time before you feel comfortable.

8.a3 is probably the soundest. After 8.0-0 b4!?, i need to see the position from the black side but havnt the time to add any variations as i am not home yet. When i get home i will suggest some lines.

Apart from 8.a3 i think 8.Qe2 is a good line. Most people seem to play 8.Qe2 against me. This line isnt that challanging for white really, most of the moves are fairly natural.

No way. I'd never play a3 (or h3) in any gambit opening. Not in the opening phase, anyway. Gambits are about developing your pieces for an attack as quickly as possible, and playing defense just doesn't fit with that concept.

As I said in the notes with the game, Langrock doesn't like 8. Qe2 much, because it allows black to play Ne7, transposing to a better line for black. He gives 8. O-O an exclamation point in this line, but his continuation has 9. Qe2, so we ended up transposing back to that line up until the point when I brought out my bishop to the wrong square. 

I'm not sure about 8. O-O b4. I'm checking in from work, so I don't have the book in front of me right now, but it kind of looks like a situation where the thematic SMG Nd5 sac might work. It would open up the e file when the black king is nowhere near being able to castle, and white has a rook and queen easily able to reach that file, along with checking possibilities on the queen side from a4. I'll look at it more later and also check the book to see what Langrock thinks.

--Fromper 

Ok, so I'm looking in Langrock's book to see what he thinks of these 8th move suggestions for both sides. He agrees with me about 8. a3, saying "You don't sacrafice a pawn for an attack, and then play moves like 8. a3". As I said earlier, he doesn't particularly like my 8. Qe2, suggesting Ne7 for black.

As for 8. O-O, he gives two main games, one of which has 8. ... d6 9. Qe2 and we're back to our game. In the other, he likes your suggestion of  8. ... b4, as well as my response of 9. Nd5 to sac for an attack.

--Fromper 

"Fromper you are playing a new line, called "hang a rook?" Doesn't look too promising."

 Hilarious!

The Smith-Morra Gambit is only dangerous if it is accepted! (Referrence  "100 Soviet miniatures".)  Yes, you can really be crushed by its virulence! But if it is declined, then much of the sting is taken out of it.  My advice is never accept the gambit. Play the declined lines:   e.g. 1)e4 ,  c5;   2). d4,   cxd4;  3) Nf3,  Nc6;   4) c3!

d6;  instead and you can lookforward to a comfortable middle-game, 

Interestingly, Singa, someone just tried that d6 move against me for the first time on FICS a couple of days ago. I didn't get the rapid attack that comes with the gambit accepted, but I had a strong pawn center after cxd4, and I still had white's normal first move advantage from the opening, so I still prefer white's position. My opponent didn't play great in the middle game, so I won. Here's the full game if you're interested.

Hello everyone,

Graw81, your tone has mellowed out remarkably.  From your first post I thought maybe that you had authored a chess masterpiece, From the Sickbed of the Smith-Morra Gambit.  Anyway glad to see the transformation. 

I am of the opinion that if an opening is popular enough to have received a name, then there may be something to it and you had best tread lightly if you encounter it and are ill prepared.

1)e4!

 Yes and no. Since exaggeration furthers comprehension, I give you two named and famous lines of Gedult's Opening:

Hammerschlag Opening: 1. f3? e5 2. Kf2?

Fool's Mate: 1. f3? e5 2. g4?? Qh4#

I hardly consider the fool's mate a bonafide opening.  If anything it is the strawman of how not to play chess. 

I never heard of Hammerschlag's Opening.  Is this a real opening?  If it is then I will amend may previous statement to not include openings that needlessly move the monarch w/o castling.

 Yes it is a true opening. It's idea is to develop the king right away so when all the pieces are exchanged, or most of them anyway, white's king is alredy actively placed for the endgame. On another site I know of 2000's rated player that plays that opening in tournament play and gets good results with it.

That isnt the idea at all, as the king will almost certainly need to be moved again.  The idea is to say to your opponent "i'm so much better than you, i can play the worst possible opening and still beat you".  (obviously discounting openings with an obvious checkmate, like 2.g4). 

There are plenty of openings which are known to be terrible but have a name.  For example, the Crab, or the Damiano defence, or Damiano variation of the Petroff.  In the case of the Damiano defence, it got the name when Damiano condemned it as weak. 

 Yes the king moves but he never moves to back rank. THe player I'm talking about played that opening against a guy that had a very similar rating to her in an OTB game so I'm guessing she wasn't saying that she was way better than him. She was just sidestepping opening memorisation. In fact she says that is her main goal while playing that.

 I agree with that. f3 theoretically is the worst first move for white but a weakness is only a weakness if it can be explored. She says she likes to play weird openings cause she's lazy to study openings. That way she knows for sure she'll be playing chess from the very first move and not trying to see who memorised more stuff on the Najdorf Sicilian for instance.

One other thing that I'd like to say is that we got the example from Karpov and Tony Miles game. I think it is fair to say that Karpov had a deeper knowledge than Tony Miles on virtually every GM opening so he played 1. ... a6 in response to 1. e4. Was he saying to Karpov that he was much better than him? Of course not he was just side stepping a lot of knowledge from Karpov. And he won the game. Than in that case why not use that response more times? Well because the surprise factor was lost and I'm willing to bet that after that loss Karpov and other GM guys looked for the propper refutation of that move. Now in her case people has other hings to do than to play chess so I guess she can still use her crazy openings and get away with it.

I jus remember one thing. As white she sometimes opens with 1. h4 2. h5 

the thing is, there are plenty of decent intuitive openings where if you know them less than your opponent you might give away a slight edge, but that's it.  By playing f3 you are giving them more of an edge than they would ever get normally, right away. 

a6 isnt nearly as bad as f3, and while he wasnt saying 'you're a chump' he probably gained some psychological advantage as well as avoiding some theory.   for instance karpov would probably feel pressured to ensure a win after such a hopeless reply. 

h4h5 is insane! (but probably still better than f3Kf2!)