A wild Smith Morra


Also, I'm unfollowing this thread for multiple reasons.

1) I don't want this to turn into a flame war.

2) After dozens of posts, the only thing that I've learned from talking with you is that 6.Bf4 is considered serious by Lenderman and that I should analyze it slightly deeper.

3) I'm having serious theoretical discussions with other players including titled players and talking to you has been more of a distraction than anything else.


I expect to be paid the $20 bounty you have offered as ALL lines for White have not be refuted. By your own admission 6. Bf4 needs further research. It is of no use to claim you considered the variation to be inferior and therefor it is dismissed in your lesson. You have claimed Stockfish has analyzed and verified all the main lines. 6. Bf4 after 5. ...e6 is considered BEST by Stockfish. How this escaped your attention, I do not know. But I do know $20 is owed.

Here is the $20 bounty offered on your page.

"But just as soon as we started to revive the Smith Morra, it was refuted, again by LogozRAR himself. Paying for a costly meetup in some random skyscraper, he laid out the refutation line by line and welcomed me and others to debunk him, even promising a $20 bounty (the 20 symbolizing the number of minutes it took for him to find the refutation)

To this day, it has remained unclaimed. I tried hard day and night, being broke, and so did all of my chess friends (the plan was for them to tell me the refutation, and I would claim it), but the engines realized it was good, and thus after a while we had to admit- LogozRAR was right, and the Smith Morra was refuted."

If you're a man of your word, you can gift me an upgrade membership as I have clearly and successfully shown that every line has not been refuted. Thank you and good chess.

LogoCzar - "From the theoretical point of view, 6.Bf4 isn't critical so I only covered it in the course up to 6...a6. Perhaps that was a mistake, I can add some sub-variations to clarify what is best even if there are many moves that Black can press in. In the position in our game, I could have played 7...Nge7 8.Bd3 Ng6 and fought for the advantage there, but 7...f5 (8.Bd3 can be met with 8...Bc5 followed by ...Nge7 among other moves), 7...f6, and 7...Bb4 are also strong and allow Black to fight for the advantage. My preference is 7...f5."

Black is "fighting for advantage." Therefor, No advantage exists and objectively speaking White has maintained an edge. I do not expect the bounty to be lived up two. It's just more of the same hype that the SM is refuted. Sounds deliciously wonderful. Maybe enough will fall for it so you'll make a buck or two.




6. Bf4 after 5. ...e6 is considered BEST by Stockfish.

It's well known, though, that Stockfish isn't very good at openings, so we can ignore that can't we?


Perhaps. But the main feature and selling point of the OP's lessons is specifically just that, that SF has analyzed and verified ALL LINES, as if SF is the ultimate authority.


6. Bf4 a6 (to prevent Nb5) 7. e5 and LogoCzar prefers f5?

6. Bf4 d6 and then 7. Bc4 with too many threats for comfort.

Oh really ? 7. ... f5 instead of Nge7 ? This is a refutation?


I've just been spending ten minutes looking at Bf4. I have had it played against me and I think I lost to it once. It does have some point to it since d6 is an obvious hole. But I tend to like systems with a6. Regarding e5 f5, I also like f5 in various Sicilian lines in general to stabilise the centre. All the more point after e5 by white surely? I also like playing against the Smith Morra. Time was I knew five systems reasonably well, but now I tend to stick to two .... e6-a6 systems and Ne7. I've been playing Ne7 for nearly ten years and I'm sad it's become so popular.


The Smith-Morra is a principled opening along the lines of The King's Gambit. Such openings are never "refuted" in the sense Black wins by force. To make claims as "better in all variations" is never realistic. Such claims come and go by romantics, fanatics and $addicts. Eventually it is hoped youngsters will understand the world is not so simple a place.

Take the Danish Gambit. Black is up two pawns, but what is considered to be a "refutation" is a defense that returns the two pawns, exchanges Queens right into an equal middle game. Refutations can simply suggest achieving quick equality. There are better ways vs. the Danish, but the Danish itself is not refuted in the sense it is busted/losing by force, is completely unplayable. The OP would have us believe he has developed such a system, making The SM unplayable. I'd think he'd be a rich chess player by now and could easily cough up the $20 bounty.