The Not Smith-Morra Gambit

To the Chess.com members and community: this is not a good opening for White. Please stop playing it.

I call it the Not Smith-Morra Gambit because it almost gets to the actual gambit, but then White wastes two tempi to regain the pawn (the exact opposite of a gambit - where material is lost to gain tempo!)

Here is the line that I am talking about:

Actually black will gain control pretty easily

I never lose a game when I play against these weird openings

Well... it spends two tempi to regain the pawn (which should be intended as a gambit!) and develop nothing.

Oh, my.

I said "please!" Don't take it so seriously. All I'm saying is it would be a lot more fun to play against the actual gambit, rather than this. A lot more can be learned that way, I think.

Our team has faced that odd non-smith-morra opening twice.

Game One (0-1)

Game Two (still in progress)

How dare you post such insensitive comments! This is a bunch of poppycock!

1 e4 c5  2 d4 cxd4  3 Qxd4 Nc6  4 Qe3 is similar to the Center Game (1 e4 e5  2 d4 exd4  3 Qxd4  Nc6  4 Qe3).  I think the Sicilian version might be slightly worse than the Center Game (from White's point of view) because Black still has two center pawns to White's one center pawn.  Plus, the half-open c-file is good for Black.  Having said all this, this variation might be an interesting "surprise weapon" against a booked-up Dragon or Nadjorf player.  I suspect that reasonable play by Black will give him at AT LEAST an even game, though.

 After 1 e4 c5  2 d4 cxd4  3 Qxd4 Nc6  4 Qe3, White has NOT lost any tempi.  Both sides have exactly one piece developed, but White also has a pawn on e4, while Black's remaining pawns are all on their original squares.  Now, White's Queen isn't particularly well-placed on e3, but "effeciency of development" is a separate issue from "tempi."  Plus, White may lose a tempo soon if he has to relocate his Queen in the opening.

Same thing in the Center Counter:  After 1 e4 d5  2 exd5 Qxd5  3 Nc3 Qa5, Dr. Tarrasch correctly pointed out that Black hasn't lost any tempi (yet).  Both sides have one piece developed, all the pawns are on their original squares, and it's White's move.  The tempi are even.

Qd1 is indeed a loss of tempo, Qe3 or Qa5 are moderately OK.

 My online chess rating is 1763, so thanks for that constructive ad hominem attack. <3

Now this is actually helpful. I never really thought of Qe3 as a next move for White here, I always see Qa4 (to half-pin the knight, which works and is pretty common) or Qd1 (which I think is bad because it virtually undoes White's second move - this is what I meant will lose time for White because all of his pieces are on their starting squares but with Black to move instead of White).

Qe3 looks okay, the queen's fairly centralized and Black would probably have to waste time if he wanted to bully it out of that spot (moving pieces a second time before finishing development). That and Qa5 both seem like legitimate moves for the queen.

 Qa4 (Not a5 you're thinking of scandinavian) is probably better. After Qe3 I usually swich to a Dragon style formation after which the Queen is misplaced, belonging behind the Bishop. The Queen on a4 prevents Black form generating too much Queenside play so it is useful.

Isn't there some chess.com version of Godwin's law that says you can't win an argument by criticizing some one's rating?  There should be!

Let them play it, encourage them, and REAP THE HARVEST!!!!

Brilliant retort!

Judging by your comments, your chess rating and IQ must be extremely high.

Even a 2800 rating is no excuse to be a douche.

I would agree that rating shouldn't be brought up in the forums. Being a weak player practically doesn't mean you ahve nothing to say. My rating has stayed pretty level around 1770 because while my strategic ability is at least 2000 (giving me lots to say in Forums) my tactical ability deserts me every 5 minutes.

 Actually, 1763 is a VERY respectable rating.

The only way to resolve a chess question is by examining specific variations, not by comparing the ratings of the participants in the discussion.

We can note, however, that your "courtesy" rating is low (at least in this thread).

RainbowRising,

Well done - you've got a higher rating than Steevmartuns. Congratulations.

They should make it a rule on here that you are unable to post unless you have a rating higher than the magical RainbowRating at which your opinion becomes relevant, and then we can only have fantastic insights on this messageboard like you provide here.

If you think my point is wrong, then how about proving your point instead of throwing insults out and completely derailing the topic?