The Smith-Morra Gambit... Accept or Refute?

You know, I've seen this statement a lot of places. I believe it was originally said by the first official World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz. And I usually don't disagree with Grandmasters or World Champions when it comes to chess. But I definitely disagree here.

The definition of refuting any move in chess is to prove that the person making that move will lose (or sometimes draw, if they were supposed to be playing for a win) for having made it. Sometimes, that means accepting a material sacrifice and proving that the person playing the sac doesn't get enough compensation for it. Other times, it means declining the material sacrifice in a way that leaves the opponent worse off for having tried to sac material. That holds true in the opening just as much as any other time of the game.

In some gambits, the way to refute the gambit is to accept the gambit pawn, then prove that the gambiteer's attack isn't enough to make up for the material. But in some cases, the gambiteer's position is just awkward if their gambit is declined, so refusing to accept the material is a better refutation of the gambit than accepting the pawn. I can think of a couple of gambits where the best refutation is to decline the gambit in a particular way.

I just had to get that off my chest. I've seen this nonsense statement repeated way too many times.

As for the Smith-Morra Gambit, it's probably not white's best try against the Sicilian. But it's certainly playable - I saw an IM score a win as white with this gambit at a tournament, where he was trying for a GM norm. So obviously, it can't be too awful, or he wouldn't be playing it.

If you accept the gambit as black, you need to defend very accurately. I think it's easier to play white than black in the accepted lines. On the other hand, if you decline the gambit, many white players, especially at lower levels, have only prepared how to play if it's accepted, so they don't know how to handle the declined lines.

So I think black should decline the gambit, unless he's done some serious study on defending the accepted gambit position.

rich if you play 1e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nf6  and 5. e5 then knight only square is back to g8 :(

There's "unsound" and then there's truly bad.

The Englund Gambit (1. d4 e5?!) is truly bad. I scored some nice wins with it when I used to play it in the U1600 sections of USCF tournaments, but nobody over 1800 will let you get away with that garbage. Since I'm rated in the 1700's now and trying to beat guys rated 1900+ regularly, I've given it up for sounder openings.

The Smith-Morra Gambit, on the other hand, may or may not be theoretically sound. That's still up for debate. GM's won't play it because other lines of the Sicilian are definitely sound, and probably offer white slightly better prospects for a win. But the SMG still gets plenty of use below that level, including among strong masters. Here's an article from the USCF web site where IM Marc Esserman shows some of his games from the 2008 Miami Open, including two games where he played the SMG against other IM's: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8739/473/ One accepted the gambit, the other declined, and white won both games. Nuff said.

I still play the SMG as white, every time I see the Sicilian. It may ultimately prove to be unsound, but there's no definitive refutation, it gives me good chances, especially against unprepared opponents, and most importantly, it's just fun to play.

--Fromper

well said

I played Smith Morra against lower rated opposition (<2000) and I found that Black gets quite a comfortable and easy game, not the type of game I would expect him to struggle after I sacrificed a pawn. So, I think the gambit is playable, but, if Black doesn't get too greedy or doesn't walk into some trap, he will be slightly better. These being said, I prefer 2. c3. I know, Black gets an easy game here too, but I don't sacrifice any pawn :)

Yes, I skipped a few moves. Smith-Morra is 1.e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 and now the "natural" 4...Nf6 is bad because of 5.e5.

Sure, the initial question was 1.e4 c5 2. d4 Nf6. Now that's an odd move, as Black develops a knight which will be attacked and also does not fight for the center. Let's say 3. e5 Nd5 4. c4 Nb4 5. dxc5 and it looks that Black sacrificed a pawn. He might get it back later. OK Rich, it's quite playable, although I would prefer White in this position.

I like it as white as I get to develop the bishops, I would rather play the danish gambit though.

as black I would decline as it creates an isolated pawn I can play tactics on.

Let's say he played it. He is a veteran now, and I think most of his games are from the 70's

Alex Lenderman also playes it and i believe that he is now a GM :)

This opening is not sound.

The best modern OTB GM's like Kramnik, Anand & Carlsen never play it so why should you?

I constantly bump into GM's in my CC games, so just look to play the QGD instead.

The Morra gambit may be a fun opening for the rest of us, but chess really shouldn't be about fun.

I believe that is said for sacrifices, not for gambits. Gambits are all about gaining time, space and attack. Smith morra gambit was first played by Serbian GM Milan Matulovic and Tartakower before him.

Kramnik, Anand, and Carlsen don't play the Vienna, Giuoco Piano, or Scotch as white, either. Should those be abandoned by the rest of us, too?

Did you actually just say "chess really shouldn't be about fun"??? The day you're right about that is the day we all quit the game.

My point, made also in the Langrock book, is that Black scores well because White doesn't know what he's doing - 'normal' Morra development is insufficient and leaves Black clearly better. But there are other ways :)

it is a perfectly playable option for anybody below 2200 (OTB) and perhaps even higher. Walter and Joe Shipman (both IM"s I believe) played it and wrote about it quite a bit in Chess Horizons. I also believe Lenderman  has played it as well. If you play it and know it it will be as good as any other opening for casual players. 

At the top levels the standards are much different but most players, including myself,  can't understand why GM's rank some positions +/=. Preparation at the top level (even among GM's) is at a totally new level. My recommendation is if you like to play the position and know the middlegame as White it is fine. As Black it depends on what you know and what type of positions you are more comfortable in and that is the decision on whether to accept of decline it. With less knowledge declining is easiest and safest.

Nonsense. If you never learn the King's Gambit because the top GMs don't play it, you will never rise above 1300 level.

The reason Anand doesn't play the King's Gambit against Kramnik is that he knows that Kramnik would know very well how to defend against it.

I would have thought that the 3rd sentence in my post would have given the game away.

Apparently not...

Oh sorry Steve, I guess that we have come to expect absurd opinions...

I think you're just biased.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with fun, but when I bash gambits it's not because they are unplayable but instead come from my point of view that I don't think throwing in a bag of tricks is not how I want to grow in the long run (yes I want to become good, no it's not over optimistic I can tell it's possible for me even if it'll take a long time). Instead I want to just outplay the opponent and that way there is no chance that a certain amount of knowledge about a suspect but "too sharp to refute" (I'm not saying the smith morra is refuted, btw) will become "obsolete" when I play against stronger and stronger players.

But positionally speaking, how much does white really get that he doesn't get in the open? Lets see, there are some well known traps like an early ...Nf6 that are indeed hard to see the first try, and white gets slightly more development and black's counterplay is less. Sure white gets the c file, but is it really going to be that useful? Black will probably want to use the c file (eventually) himself and maybe it will just be a means for trading off rooks. It seems like black's position is more restrained, but the central structure seems solid enough that he can slowly unravel. It seems like white has present but insufficent objective compensation (and I would be comfortable handling the passive but solid black side) but if I'm wrong at best it's equal.

Besides the plan of attacking on the kingside by using the light squares, there is also pressure along the semi-open d-file on the (weak) d6 pawn. It's difficult for Black to find active squares for the pieces. (For example the Queen can have problems, facing the Rook on the c file.) If the White manages to play e5 they will have more space and will have freedom to attack on the kingside. But to prevent e5 the Black might have to play e5 themselves and this will now leave the d pawn backward and the king's bishop blocked in. It's not quite so one-dimensional.

That said, I no longer play Smith Morra against strong opponents or in long games. For blitz, it is fun to play and scores pretty well.

P.S. It should really be called Matulovic-Morra.