A wild Smith Morra

LogoCzar

I wanted to have some fun, so I played a smith morra and threw in a Nd5 sacrifice.

Perhaps the GM who played it against me yesterday (he won) inspired me to give it a try.

The time control was 3 0

 

 

BronsteinPawn

Reefuuuteeed.

BronsteinPawn

d3!/Nf6!! =========

LogoCzar

I just published a Chessable book on how to fight the Smith-Morra. I found an early novelty which gives Black the advantage in all variations, verified by Stockfish and several masters. https://www.chessable.com/mangle-the-morra/course/19264/

MustangMate

"In my opinion, this repertoire more or less closes the book on the Smith-Morra Gambit." -LogoCzar

Them are quite bold words ! It's all been said before. You're charging $10 for this "new innovation."

Nice try. but I'd be careful with this advertising in the forums. Not sure if it's kosher. Just another RAR gimmick I'll wager.

LogoCzar
MustangMate wrote:

"In my opinion, this repertoire more or less closes the book on the Smith-Morra Gambit." -LogoCzar

Them are quite bold words ! It's all been said before. You're charging $10 for this "new innovation."

They aren't my words. They are the words of NM 1e41-0. He can be found on chess.com.

You can find many of the reviewers on chess.com. For instance, NM FrenchIsBad, NM NikolasTheiss, NM ZukertortsGhost, FM pikachuisdabest, FM skkeyan, NM RARAttackerStephenCorelli, zaeemalam, ragchess26, Stephen_Stanfield, and Pawn_Breaker. You can message them on chess.com or Chessable and ask them about the course if you like.

There is a 30-day money back guarantee, so feel free to buy the course to see if it's legitimate and return it if you don't think it was worth your money. 

Considering that the magazines Chess Life and The British Chess Magazine are both interested in covering this refutation (an article from Chess Life and a cover story from the British Chess Magazine), with a possible feature article in New in Chess pending, I think it's fair to say that there is sufficient external evidence that this refutation should be taken seriously.

MustangMate

Why give you $10 (for an unnecessary course), when as you claim, this refutation is to be published soon? After all, it is nothing more than what you think is a TN to which you want to charge a fee. There are several free, utube lessons on the Morra, by GM's far more qualified than yourself. That you are making the claim "refutation" speaks volumes. That you and your review buddies are part of this RAR business also speaks to your motives. You are in it for the $.

Dare to share this "innovation" after main line 7. Bg5? I'll refute your refutation in a heartbeat. Been playing the Morra since Ken published is pamphlet. I've seen all the so-called refutations come and go to KNOW none exists. Unless you call a Draw a refutation. White has several improvements since Smith. Bg5 is not necessarily main line.

LogoCzar

A sample will be published, but to obtain the whole analysis, you will have to purchase the course. In case you weren't listening the first time, you can have a refund if you don't like it, and Stockfish initially dislikes my innovation (so this isn't only regurgitating engine analysis). Judging by your comparison with GMs, I suspect that you won't take me seriously, regardless of how persuasive my answer is, because I'm not titled. There is a refutation (forced advantage for Black regardless of how White plays) and if you don't want to check it out, with the option of a refund if I'm wrong, suit yourself.

Also, there is still value in purchasing my course even if you know the innovation.

a. Comprehensive analysis

b. Chessable's movetrainer feature (helping memorize through drilling)

c. Many model games/annotated games (I played many test games in the line against masters and had Stockfish play itself 45 times)

d. Detailed annotations

ajaykart

Hello my friend,

I am here to have a friendly conversation nothing else happy.png..

About the course by Logozar :

He fought Stockfish in the Critical Bg5 variation and he dvelved deep into it. He researched and he put his heart,blood and sweat into this course. Chessable Staff have a great plan for this course and we must all support Logozar in his journey! After all, refuting a Gambit like the Smith-Morra in which authors like Esserman have written books on is not easy, so let us appreciate Logozar's initiative to take up this challenge happy.png .. You're welcome to try out the course. My review (skkeyan) can be seen in the link sent by Logozar.

 

I really liked the course cause it delivers dynamic piece play at every point! happy.png

Enjoy!

Great job by Logozar!

Bye,

Ajay

MustangMate

"Memorize through drilling"...

Not my cup of tea. I've been playing for 50 years and have yet to do a single "drill." Chess as a hobby is meant to be enjoyed. Everybody and their uncle with a rating >2000 is trying to make a $ being a "coach." 99% have not a clue of meaningful skills, the sharing of knowledge that will last years from now. Very few "coaches" have the slightest interest in sharing. How do I know this? Simple. They are in it for the $ and then more $. They offer nothing in return to the chess community. They forget 99% are hobbyists, are taken advantage of by those seeking profits. Much of the knowledge can be researched. Resources are free. Master players and others volunteer their time.

Suckers are a dime a dozen, easily convinced to memorize and drill puzzles, take courses provided with engine analysis. What coach adheres to "think for yourself" ??? None who's goal is to make a profit off hobby players. I have zero issue with players seeking coaches who have long term goals in mind. That is not the issue. It's this shameless advertising that everyone needs "coaching" which only fills the pockets of nobody chess players that is objectionable. Your buddy wrote : "I've bought every lesson course!" Well good for those who have money to waste.

How long after publication that your TN is shown not to be a "refutation" of an established, principled opening? Not long indeed.

Optimissed

That may be a bit harsh. I believe LogoCzar when he claims to have found a refutation. You see, a very strong player at our club found one about two years ago after extensive analysis of a particular approach by black to the Smith Morra. I don't have to buy a course because I only have to message my friend and he will remind me. I have every reason to believe that he and LogoCzar found the same thing. In deference to LogoCzar trying to make an honest buck, I'm not going to tell people here what the refutation is.

Optimissed

The same person also found a refutation of the Cochrane Gambit after we played it together a few months previously. It was very clever and very real. I always knew the Cochrane was dodgy but actually, it just loses.

MustangMate

The OP chooses to advertise, solicit $ in a public forum. Not sure if this violates TOA. Beside the point. He creates a thread playing the Smith-Morra and wins, then goes on to state he has a "refutation" of the opening. He has to expect criticism of this wild claim. A refutation implies the opening is lost for White, to which he wants to be paid for his TN. Perhaps he has shown an improvement, one that readily equalizes, but this "refutation" claim is pure nonsense. As with all principled openings, there never exists a refutation, a move or two that busts the opening. I suppose the OP will claim the Danish is refuted. All nonsense of course. Black may be slightly better, but such openings are never refuted, to state one side wins by force.

Optimissed

I know. I think I better contact my friend and get him to send me his analysis.

LogoCzar

It’s not a forced loss for White, but black definitely has the advantage. There are lines where white has reasonable defensive chances, or a worse endgame, etc. In the first post I made in this thread regarding my “refutation” I said that black has the advantage in all variations. That should give you enough context to know which definition of refutation I’m using.

nighteyes1234
MustangMate wrote:

The OP chooses to advertise, solicit $ in a public forum. Not sure if this violates TOA. Beside the point. He creates a thread playing the Smith-Morra and wins, then goes on to state he has a "refutation" of the opening. He has to expect criticism of this wild claim. A refutation implies the opening is lost for White, to which he wants to be paid for his TN. Perhaps he has shown an improvement, one that readily equalizes, but this "refutation" claim is pure nonsense. As with all principled openings, there never exists a refutation, a move or two that busts the opening. I suppose the OP will claim the Danish is refuted. All nonsense of course. Black may be slightly better, but such openings are never refuted, to state one side wins by force.

 


How is black slightly better?

 

MustangMate

Ne7 lines of course are all the latest rage. Why ? Because other lines have not proven to be ALL they are reported to be.

Here 8. Bg5 seems a loss of Tempo as 10. Be3 gets played. Bg5 if it provokes f6 may be useful, but not sure if Bg5 ... Qc7 benefits White. I would find another move here, before committing the c1B. Blacks structure is locked somewhat. White remains much freer. Still, there remains the game to be played and good point, Black is still the pawn up, but who has the initiative and play ? I think most would prefer to play White.

LogoCzar
nighteyes1234 wrote:

How is black slightly better?

MustangMate

8. Bg5 is not mandatory, as Be7 helps Black.  Even so, you claim SF eval of +.4 is a refutation of the opening? This is laughable, underscoring your lack of an objective evaluation.

8. Qe2 seems logical. Black's structure remains fixed. Any h6 or f6 ideas may well prove too slow/weakening trying to prevent a future Bg5. An immediate Be3 may find it's way later.

MustangMate

What you fail to understand Logo, is that Black has blunted immediate threats. But his structure is locked. Here White has several long term positional plans, with zero fears of any counter-play.

This comes NOWHERE'S near a "refutation". For practical play, the Sicilian player is out of his element. White is in his.

The majority of Space belongs to White. All Black moves remain defensive in nature. It's a long time coming for Black's Queenside. He might sort it out, but at the cost of the backward d pawn.