yet another opening repertoire question

http://www.chess.com/article/view/smith-morra-gambit
Article on the Smith-Morra Gambit 

I love how articles never show what happens when people decline pawns on c3. You end up blocking your own knight development.

Not true, 6 Bc4 transposes into other lines of the Sicilian, many of which give advantage or equality to White.

Second, if someone is asking what to play on a forum like this, he is no grandmaster and whether a line theoretically allows equalization or not is irrelevant, as both players are sure to make many mistakes in the game, and the one who has the attack has the better chances. If one is going to make a weak move, it is better to make an attacking move than a defensive move.

Actually the Smith-Morra Gambit was my first approach against the Sicialian but over time I realised that I do not feel comfortable with gambits.

Whites chances don't look much better in that line compared to other better sicilian lines:

Again we must consider the level of the likely opponents. If they are Master level and know all the best lines, this player has no chance whatever he plays. Most amateurs would rather accept the gambit and play with the extra pawn then risk going into unknown variations.

As a player who has been playing for many years and is certainly not Master level, I would rather go into a slightly inferior familiar position that my opponent is unlikely to know better than I, than get embroiled in a variation of the Najdorf, Sheveningen, Dragon or Bolalevsky that my opponent might have learned 20 moves deep ...

And just why do you think that Nigel Short plays this opening against grandmasters, if not to mix up the cards? If it's good enough for a grandmaster, it's good enough for me...

My point is still valid. You will get zero out of your gambit repetoire if your opponent declines it and knows a few moves, which isn't hard at all. Whenever I pick up a new opening I always learn the way to decline gambits that can be played against it, or how to accept and neutralize it. It mostly one or two lines. Piece of cake compared to coming up with defenses against strong mainlines. But yes as you all say, against people that are totally clueless in their opening repetoire you can pull all kinds of attacking stunts with gambits like this. But then again, they would lose to mainlines aswell and mainlines aren't as easily defused.

As a person who had an all-gambit repertoire for the past 5 years, I can say this =>

Gambits / unsound openings win you the occasional games when facing strong opposition ... but not tournaments.

In other words, consistently tackling strong players requires you play something sound.  

Sure, you'll meet 1 or 2 people who don't know the theory, but at the higher levels, THIS always happens:

A) They KNOW the theory ... kind of explains why they're so highly rated.

B) They don't know the lines, but they are tactically "far superior" to you  to compensate for the lack of theory. You might as well be playing something sound.

Not sure the kind of opposition you might be playing, but once you start meeting 1800+ rated players in tournaments again and again and again, one trick ponies (as most Gambits are) only take you so far.

Edit: Don't get me wrong about playing lines "unknown" to your amateur opponent ... I'm all for it ... they just don't "HAVE" to be gambit lines :)

A book I've found very useful is Steve Giddins "How To Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire".  Check the reviews on Amazon.com or Silman's review.

Against sicillians make an english setup, this is what a lot of strong players have suggested to me.  In fact, chess.com universtiy has a crash course on ways to make an english setup against different sicillians. 

You mean the botvinnik setup?

I think he means the English Attack setup (don't know what the Botvinnik setup is-it might be the same thing idk) with f3,Be3,Qd2,0-0-0 followed by a kingside pawn storm while Black seeks counterplay on the C-file with a possible exchange sacrifice Rxc3. I always find that these sacrifices are hard to time though but if they work its good, if not, then depending on your opponents playing strength, Black may or may not be able to hold the endgame an exchange down.

I know for a fact that this setup works vs. d6 Sicilians such as the Dragon, Najdorf, and Scheveningen but I don't think it works against the ...Nc6 Sicilians such as the Accl.Dragon (Black can play d5 in 1 move or play the Qa5 variation which forces 0-0 instead of 0-0-0)

I also suggest this setup- it makes for some very fun games.

Who got the nukes?

Buddy T - the problem with your rep idea for e4 is that you end up playing precisely what your opponents will be most prepared for. What is the point of playing a watered down 1. e4 rep when you could play your 1.d4?

You can bet your opponents see the Rossolimo constantly as every e4 player afraid of theory will play that or an Alapin etc. In the end you are still outbooked by your opponent.

Base your repertoire on the positions you get, not fear of theory.

I don't disagree, but if one is going to win against 1800+ rated players, he does not have to come to this forum to ask what openings to use - and he is going to lose whatever opening he uses!

My point is that chess is a battle. Low-rated players are going to make one or more game-losing moves during a game, and defensive mistakes are more likely to lose a game than attacking mistakes. Beong a pawn down for a 1400 rated player is irrelevant, and is MORE than compensated by the lines opened for attack.

@henri5 :  Agreed ... curiously enough, you're saying exactly what I said (and thought) 3 years back. But  aren't you setting yourself up for a plateau in your chess growth? Great, your gambits are mopping the floor and your "frequent" 1400-rated opponents are crushed easily. What's next for your chess horizon? Take on 1500s ... 1600s...eventually, you'll reach a point where you have to learn new theory to take these guys on  .... time that can be better spent (IMHO) extending existing  "sound" theory (that you could have  grown like a well-trimmed bonsai tree) with deeper study.  

Ultimately it's what is fun for you. If being the best rated 1400-rated gambit player around is the last stop on your chess bus, you win ... no arguments.  If you play gambits to sharpen your tactics or learn to play open positions with initiative better, great ... that's precisely why I did it ... but as many a strong player has told me before => there comes a time to move on. :)

I wanted to grow and get better and realized that I can't keep re-customizing my opening preparation for each rating class I intend to beat.   Takes way too much time.

Thanks for the ideas and the books.

I play the KIA against the French, so it's not a completely new idea to me.  I have considered many times to turn the KIA into a universal type opening but it's not that strong against other lines (or at least this is what I hear). I have also considered the Bird but that is even more dubious than the London. I would with no hesitation pick up the London or the Bird but I m at a point that I want to improve my opening and my game. So it seems logical to stick to main theory, maybe sidelines but not too far away from it. I 'm wondering about how I can - relatively with safety - reach the positions that I like and understand without too much opening theory.

I do not want to learn the absolutely most sound line that can be played in a world championship game. I have been playing openings where I can safely reach a position that I understand, I have an idea of the basic plans and usually that position is an active, rather open, tactical one. I have played sidelines, as long as they are sound, in order to limit the replies and thus the variations that I need to remember.

IMHO a pawn is not a big deal in low level amateur games if in that way you get an open file for the rooks or something similarly overwhelming, but like I posted before I do not feel comfortable with gambits unless there is a very immediate and clear gain that I can sustain. Unfortunately this is rarely the case for me.

A good way to acquire the main ideas in a position is to play through some master-level games in that opening. Get to a position sufficiently deep, so that there aren't too many (<100) master games, and play through a dozen or two of them. I think you'll learn a lot on strategy. If you pick some where white wins, some where black wins, try to find some recognizable names from both white and black side (super GMs), you'll get a nice array of how to play.

Right! That is one of my problems currently. I have a couple books that explain every single move but they don't go much deep and they are probably outdated too. Emms' repertoire book that I have been using is full of variations, but no explaining, plans or anything like that. Although I like it, because I can have almost everything in single book (and fortunately I like most of its suggestions), It leaves me with no plans when I get on my own. I have some understanding of the rather clear positions but beyond that I cannot take the initiative. I usually have to wait for black to do something and thus giving away the first move advantage.On the other hand, when playing with black pieces that seems to be less of a problem.

So that is why I was considering other opening systems. If those would let me get into similar positions that I can get familiar with and have an idea what to do. Such opening systems being too passive they leave too many options for the opponent and they rarely end up in the same positions. Right?

I was not talking about me, I was talking about the guy who asked for suggestions about openings. When I was active in competition I once had a won game against a Master, and I have beaten players rated over 1900, so I am quite familiar with the dangers of playing inferior openings against strong players. Now I am rusty from years of inactivity, and I am lucky if I don't hang a piece! My "chess growth" now consists of trying to hit 1600 on this site...

Chess is war, and one has to adjust to his opponent. Caesar didn't fight the same way when he was fighting Pompeii and when he was fighting barbarians...

The good spirit can be found in a book that I have had for years but have just begun to read: "Samurai chess", by Raymond Keene and M.J. Gelb.