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

the difference between the Smith-Morra and the Half-Danish up to move 4 is a pawn is on e7 instead of c7

Just to say "Thank you" for #88

Poompat: May I know what do you mean 'for #88'? Just curious to know.

after d4 can u play d5?

Why not 'go all the way', offer up a second pawn 4. Bc4 instead of 4. Nxc3, and transpose the game into the Danish Gambit?

And for all those denigrating the Smith Morra Gambit, have a look at what Mikhail Tal did with it in his match vs Neibult:  https://youtu.be/KqAGRa49f7Y

i always lose against the smith morra gambit

I accept it because I've studied it well and so feel comfortable taking the pawn and going for it. Accepting a gambit is pretty much always the most critical test.

That does not transpose to the Danish Gambit, it is just a bad way to play the Smith Morra.

The Danish Gambit starts with 1. e4  e5.

Smith. in many of his books played the Smith Morra directly with 1. e4  c5

2. d4  cxd4  3. c3  dxc3  4. Nxc3.

I played the Smith Morra for decades with very good results. Usually the gambit was declined.

Some lines given here are not best play.

I may be wrong but think in the San Antonio tournament Bobby Fischer [as White] played the Smith Morra in one game?  He missed the best line and the game ended in a draw? 

You might find this thread helpful:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/counter-the-smith-morra-gambit

I do not know of any defense which refutes the Smith Morra. Some say the Chicago Defense does but I disagree and tend to think the Chicago Defense is not so good.

is b3 any good after d4? i tried and it seemed to work pretty well

I think the best thing to do is decline the Morra Gambit after 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 with 3...Nf6, because after 4.e5 Nd5 etc. you've also reached a line you can play against the Alapin: 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4.  This way you kill two birds with one stone, and you take the Morra Gambiteer's fun away

The best is to accept the gambit. After 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 d6 5.Bc4 a6! And after 6.O-O Nf6.

This line is good for black.

Except material equality.

I don't know, the way I see it, white does get a lot of play, but it's hard to imagine that when black has no real weaknesses, that white can force a way to break through. Even if he wins the pawn back, it might just trade stuff off and get into an equal position. And if white gradually starts to drift, then eventually he might just be down a pawn. It just seems like there are other ways of white being ambitious without making a commitment as large as a pawn. But, if you're really good with these kinds of positions as white, then the gambit is still worth playing. How both sides play subsequently is still going to be the most important factor.

Maroczi bind is not the Graal.

White has more space, but black is solid and has options.

d3 is a practical way to play against crazy gambiters.

It brings sound and safe play for black, avoiding the type of positions white wants.

For instance :

If black likes to play Maroczi bind/hedgehog positions, then i don't see the problem.

Maybe it is slighly better for white, as most openings...

Another example whte black doesnt play g6 and just plays Scheveninguen (or let's say pure hedgehog) approach :

White was better for a long part of the game, but when he had to take decision in a position who is unusual (compared to a "pure" Morra gambit), he collapsed.

That's the way most GM play nowadays, they don't care about being slightly worse, they play position they like. Anybody should have the same approach.

Refute? I think you mean refuse. After all, the best way to refute a gambit is ... well, I don't need to finish that sentence.