15940 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I am an aggressive sicilian defense player, and I have heard about this gambit. I learned two different lines in the Smith-Morra Gambit: The Smith-Morra Gambit Accepted, or the Smith-Morra Gambit Declined.
The question is: Which option will give black a more playable position, Accepting the Gambit, or Refuting it?
there are many more ways to decline, I play g6 then the d5 counterthrust.
depends what "playable" is to you.. like you said you like to attack so maybe you dont like to defend
Personally I don't like the The Smith-Morra Gambit.
I never accept. Usually they don't really know what they're doing either after that.
Accepting this gambit seems to be a bad idea. I was beaten by it two days ago, where I accepted and didn't play actively enough. A drubbing I'll never forget!
I can't resist accepting gambits and trying to keep my position solid. I love material.
I don't think you can judge how good something is theoretically solely from your own experience! Theoretically black is supposed to eventually get an edge if I remember correctly, but you have to be confident that you won't fall for the traps and know how to play when a pawn up but without the initiative.
Oh, I meant it seems to be a bad idea for me! Since I don't know the theory, playing the tamest continuation without a forest of complications is the best for me. Maybe I'll give it a look over - it's somewhat popular where I live.
as Elubas says, and the end of the day black should be better..
but for 2 lower rated players, accepting leads to a very natural position for white, and its a much bigger strain for the black player. if white fails theyre usually trying to force a draw in an endgame, where if black fails its checkmate
The right thing to do is to accept the gambit, make sure you play a6, d6, e6 and also that White will never be able to push e5 under favourable conditions (that's the key idea in this gambit, if White can push e5, he has threats and an easy game). The best thing you can do is to use the search function, this gambit has been discussed here in depth several times.
GM's do not play it and have called it unsound. I believe them. If you have time to study the opening, learn the lines and accept.
There are other ways to decline the gambit.
I'm a material glutton too. lol. I'm trying to learn to behave.
The only way to refute a gambit is to accept it. That is especially true here, because if black knows his theory white eventually ends up being a pawn down for pretty much nothing.
Accept the gambit!
The move order you show is the Morra Gambit, which never caught on because Black can equalize with the declining 3...d5, and White has nothing.
The "Smith-" part comes from Ken Smith, publisher of the old Chess Digest magazine and other chess periodicals and pamphlets, who made the gambit his own by adopting instead the basic Open Sicilian move order of 2 Nf3 and 3 d4, and only after 3...cxd4 played 4 c3. He claimed a White edge against 4...d5 and 4...d3, and a free and easy development after 4...dxc3 5 Nxc3 with Bf1-c4, Qe2, 0-0, and Rfd1 to follow, trying to balance playing for e4-e5 with playing against Black's often weak Pd6 while not giving up the c-file for the normal counterplay.
Smith's friend and collaborator, GM Larry Evans, did not agree and insisted Black is just a pawn up for a single tempo, which is not enough to defeat a Scheveningen set-up. Smith played in the Church's GM event at San Antonio 1972 (won by Karpov, Portisch and Petrosian) and tried his gambit against several GMs. In the tournament book, Larsen criticized Keres for playing 1...e5 against Smith "because facing this opponent 1...c5 wins a pawn!"
What did Smith play against 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 ? 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3?! allows 4...Nf6! as a strong reply
Pedantic and wrong, IMO. I remember getting Chess Digest when Ken Smith was editor, and I don't recall him ever advocating an e4-Nf3-d4-c3 move order. It's not like you could've missed it, either, he was tireless in his enthusiasm for the opening.
white plays 2.d4 I would play Nf6.
GM Milan Matulovic
8/28/2016 - Invincible
by slobodan007 a few minutes ago
Chess.com worst website on the internet
by Twpsyn 10 minutes ago
All The Reasons We Hate V3!
by xming 12 minutes ago
8/26/2016 - Kouatly - Tsheshkovsky, Hoogovens 1988
by Kotteb 16 minutes ago
by egoole 20 minutes ago
What People Do When They Loose
by egoole 22 minutes ago
why no chess in Olympics
by GnrfFrtzl 29 minutes ago
Problems defending vs 6. Ng5 in the Ruy Lopez
by ChessOath 40 minutes ago
How to improve memorization
by GeronimoGM 46 minutes ago
8/27/2016 - Oh, no! I'm one piece down!
by KID_Harish 52 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!