The smith-morra gambit is a pathetic entertaining gambit: put pawns on d6 and e6 and you are absolutely fine
Again, if you have such a simplistic understanding of it, I would be very happy to play it against you. Yes strong GMs can probably refute this opening but it doesn't work with "put pawns on d6 and e6". If it did even you would be a strong GM.
Hmm... I have Langrock's book, but I haven't read the whole thing, let alone memorized every variation. I wasn't aware that he recommended Bg5 against the a6 and d6 without e6 line. Nobody's ever played that way against me - or if they have, they've transposed to more common lines pretty quickly. That's how I learn - look up my games in the book and learn one line at a time, rather than sitting there trying to read and memorize the whole book. In fact, I consider that the best way for anyone to learn openings, at least below master level.
Looking at it, after 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 a6, he's worried about 7. O-O Nf6 8. Qe2 Bg4, pinning the f3 knight and getting an active position for black, while taking away much of white's activity. I can see the point. Obviously, black can't play Bg4 until after Nf6, or else white could win back his gambit pawn with a decent position via Bxf7+ Kxf7 Ng5+ and Qxg4. Several opponents have made that mistake against me at various points in the opening.
You know, even after looking over Langrock's recommendation, I still don't think I'd play his recommended 7. Bg5. It may be best at master level, but it leads to a difficult position for white to play, as pvmike pointed out. Faced with this, I'm likely to stick with the normal 7. O-O, hoping to transpose to better lines for white. If black does continue with 7. ... Nf6, threatening Bg4, I think I'd just play 8. h3. Langrock calls this "inaccurate", because now black can transpose to other lines where h3 isn't useful, and he's probably right. But below master level, it stops Bg4 and lets white stick to familiar looking positions and plans. Even in OTB tournies against players rated 1900-2000 USCF, I've found that forcing my opponent out of their preparation, while sticking to positions I know, gives me a little bit of an edge, even if the position on the board doesn't quite justify it.
As I improve, I'll probably have to study this line more and figure out why Langrock recommends Bg5, so I'll be prepared against higher rated opponents who really know what they're doing. But for now, I think I'm best off improvising after h3.
--Fromper
Great post Fromper. I agree with your thoughts in the opening and also you gave practical advise on how to learn an opening and use the tools (books and database).
I love to gobble enemy pawn if given free!
Yummy!
burp!
The best way to refute a gambit....is to accept it.
Yum.
That's the old saying, repeated ad nauseum by various masters and grandmasters over the years. I disagree.
The chess definition of "refute" means to show that the person playing a move has a worse position because of that move than if they'd played something better. Why does this necessarily have to involve capturing material? There are plenty of gambits that are perfectly playable when accepted, but the opponent can really mess up the gambiteer and leave them with an awkward position by declining the gambit properly.
In the case of the SMG, it's probably unsound at top levels, and accepting the gambit is probably the way to prove it. But it's certainly sound enough for any amateur player who has the aggressive tendencies to play it properly.
The best line (and most uncomfortable for White) is ...Bg7. After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd 3.c3 dc 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7, the best for White is 7.e5!? with "some" complications, but not enough for the pawn. Same with 6...d6!? 7.e5!?
I let Fritz (and other programs) analyzed this line for 5-6 hours and Black is better by about 0.5-0.75 pawn-eqivalence.
The reason is that:- A) open a1-h8 diagonal is good for "Dragon" bishop, B) open c-file is also good for "Dragon" set-up --eg. White will not dare o-o-o, f3, g4 as in Yugoslav, C) White's e5 is not so dangerous as in other lines.
Having said that, I still love Morra Gambit as White and have good results (against amateurs-level players under 2200ELO) with it. Out of about 30+ rated games, I remember losing only 2-3 games... and those from my ugly blunders late in the games.
I always accept gambits and then play solidly to show the gambiter that they should not have given me the pawn!
Most experts on SMG agree that it is "dynamically" sound.
The reason top players (quoting FM Hannes Langrock) do not play SMG is simply that they do not want to start the game with a "material deficit" on move 3, and spend the rest of the game try to prove the gambited pawn's compensation.
If you set a computer program (eg. Fritz) to analyze (in infinite mode) the position after 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd 3.c3 dc 4.Nxc3 for about 1-2 days [I did!]... the evaluation is about -0.4 to -0.5 (Black is better by about a half pawn)
By the way, can someone please advise me >>
How do I post a game that can be replayed --as in Concipe #87 ???
GM Julian Radulski scoring a win with the Smith-Morra earlier this year. It seems to be fairly popular among GMs when they are playing lower rated players.
The first example was inaccurate. Rad1 should have been Rfd1. The a-Rook goes to the c-file. White gets plenty of play, though the e6 line is not the only option for Black.
Declined versions usually end up as transpositions into the Alapin Variation (2. c3). The declined version you showed is probably a slight but permanent advantage for White (space & open lines). The other way to decline is with 3. ... Nf6, which is a way more complicated variation of the Alapin that pretty much drove me away from the SMG. 
Alex Lenderman also playes it and i believe that he is now a GM :)
Yes, he is. He was awarded his GM title in April.
Correspondence GM Sakae Ohtake also plays the Smith-Morra, even against other GMs.
I am glad that you provided a game by Lenderman. According to his analysis, it is far better to accept the gambit than decline it! See his video's on the Smith Morra at ICC.
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.
Im starting to wonder if you know shit about anything
Um RR Steve already indicated that he wasn't serious with this comment.
I think that he wants to get back to chess but he is doing it in his usual roundabout way !