The Morra gambit? Why not!

Date: 11 Nov 2004 01:43:52
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Greetings!

Last year Tobi and I examined the following line of the
Morra Gambit on this news group:

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6
7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7

After the moves 11. Rac1 O-O 12. Qc2 Rd8 13. a3 Bd7 14. Qd2 Be8
15. b4 Qb8 the white initiative has fizzled and Black is better.

Now I propose 11. Qa3 as improvement. White has a clear
target: Pawn d6. How to continue?
11... e5 12. Bg5 looks natural, and then?

If you don't like the above line, let's discuss another
Morra gambit variation, as you like.

For those of you regarding the Morra gambit as a weak opening,
look at the following analysis line:

[Event "Analysis"]
[Date "2004.08.31"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dc Gentle"]
[Black "Dc Gentle"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bb4
7. O-O Nge7 8. Qb3 O-O 9. Rd1 d6 10. Be3 Qa5 11. Nb5 Rd8 12. Bf4
e5 13. Ng5 exf4 14. Qxf7+ Kh8 15. a3 Bc5 16. b4 Bxf2+ 17. Kh1 Qb6
18. Nxd6 h6 19. Qh5 Rf8 20. Ndf7+ Rxf7 21. Nxf7+ Kg8 22. Bc4 Kf8
23. Ng5 Nd8 24. Nh7# 1-0

I leave it up to you to decide where Black blundered here.
These kind of lines make me confident that the Morra also
offers good chances in variations with a tougher black defense
like the above one.

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 16 Nov 2004 13:25:33
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

> Last year Tobi and I examined the following line of the
> Morra Gambit on this news group:
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4
>3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6

What about 5...Nf6?

>6. Be2 a6

What about 6...Bc5?

> 7. Bf4 d6

7...Bb4 could be played.

>8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7
>
> After the moves 11. Rac1 O-O 12. Qc2 Rd8 13. a3 Bd7 14. Qd2 Be8
> 15. b4 Qb8 the white initiative has fizzled and Black is better.

Apparently.

> Now I propose 11. Qa3 as improvement. White has a clear
> target: Pawn d6. How to continue?
> 11... e5 12. Bg5 looks natural, and then?

Um, 12...d5, liberating the center pawn and attacking White's queen?

> If you don't like the above line, let's discuss another
> Morra gambit variation, as you like.
>
> For those of you regarding the Morra gambit as a weak opening,
> look at the following analysis line:
>
> [Event "Analysis"]
> [Date "2004.08.31"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Dc Gentle"]
> [Black "Dc Gentle"]
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bb4
> 7. O-O Nge7

I like 7...Nf6

Date: 16 Nov 2004 15:47:00
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Some of your proposals have been discussed
on this news group last year already
(Just search Google news with the string
"Morra gambit" for last year.)
There you can also find 3 annotated Morra gambit
games which I played and won against members
of this group.

And in the main variant I will play
12... d5 and then the positional queen sac 13. Bxf6 Bxa3.

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 17 Nov 2004 02:42:32
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

> Some of your proposals have been discussed
> on this news group last year already
> (Just search Google news with the string
> "Morra gambit" for last year.)
> There you can also find 3 annotated Morra gambit
> games which I played and won against members
> of this group.
>
> And in the main variant I will play
> 12... d5 and then the positional queen sac 13. Bxf6 Bxa3.

Ever think there might be a reason that most of the world champions stick to
the main lines?

What you're doing is playing avoidance chess in the hope that Black won't be
as booked up in these lines. I love players who do that because I see the
garbage so much that I wind up more booked up in it.

Date: 16 Nov 2004 22:56:34
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

BTW, the games can be found here:
Game 1: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z38622CC9
Game 2: http://makeashorterlink.com/?E2E613CC9
Game 3: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M1F624CC9

"Dc Gentle" wrote:

> Some of your proposals have been discussed
> on this news group last year already
> (Just search Google news with the string
> "Morra gambit" for last year.)
> There you can also find 3 annotated Morra gambit
> games which I played and won against members
> of this group.
>
> And in the main variant I will play
> 12... d5 and then the positional queen sac 13. Bxf6 Bxa3.
>
> Kind regards,
> DC
>
>

Date: 14 Nov 2004 17:10:39
From: Tom Barnes
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Last year Tobi and I examined the following line of the
> Morra Gambit on this news group:
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6
> 7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7
>
> After the moves 11. Rac1 O-O 12. Qc2 Rd8 13. a3 Bd7 14. Qd2 Be8
> 15. b4 Qb8 the white initiative has fizzled and Black is better.
>
> Now I propose 11. Qa3 as improvement. White has a clear
> target: Pawn d6. How to continue?
> 11... e5 12. Bg5 looks natural, and then?

Maybe Black should play 6...Qc7 at once to prevent Bf4, as in:

[Event "ARM-ch U18"]
[Site "Yerevan"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[White "Toria, Gocha"]
[Black "Khalikian, Ovik"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2200"]
[BlackElo "2355"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Qc7 7. O-O
Nf6 8. Bg5 a6 9. Rc1 d6 10. h3 Be7 11. Qd2 O-O 12. Rfd1 Rd8 13. Qe3
Ne8 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Rd2 Bd7 16. Rcd1 b5 17. a3 Na5 18. b4 Nc4 19.
Bxc4 bxc4 20. Qe2 Rac8 21. Nd4 Bc6 22. Nxc6 Rxc6 23. Rd4 Rdc8 24. Qa2
Qb7 25. Rb1 h6 26. Rd2 Nf6 27. f3 Rb6 28. Kh2 a5 29. Rdb2 axb4 30.
Rxb4 Rxb4 31. Rxb4 Qc7 32. Kh1 d5 33. exd5 Nxd5 34. Nxd5 exd5 35. Qd2
c3 36. Qc2 Qc5 37. Rb7 d4 38. Qb3 Qc4 0-1

> For those of you regarding the Morra gambit as a weak opening,
> look at the following analysis line:
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bb4
> 7. O-O Nge7 8. Qb3 O-O 9. Rd1 d6 10. Be3 Qa5 11. Nb5 Rd8 12. Bf4
> e5 13. Ng5 exf4 14. Qxf7+ Kh8 15. a3 Bc5 16. b4 Bxf2+ 17. Kh1 Qb6
> 18. Nxd6 h6 19. Qh5 Rf8 20. Ndf7+ Rxf7 21. Nxf7+ Kg8 22. Bc4 Kf8
> 23. Ng5 Nd8 24. Nh7# 1-0
>
> I leave it up to you to decide where Black blundered here.
> These kind of lines make me confident that the Morra also
> offers good chances in variations with a tougher black defense
> like the above one.

I really don't like Black developing the bishop to b4. It's just too
"loose" out there and since White castles in the next move it doesn't
even pin anything. If he does play Bb4 he ought to continue with
7...Bxc3 even though I would still prefer White.

Date: 15 Nov 2004 16:22:29
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Tom Barnes" wrote:

> Maybe Black should play 6...Qc7 at once to prevent Bf4, as in:
>
> [Event "ARM-ch U18"]
> [Site "Yerevan"]
> [Date "1983.??.??"]
> [White "Toria, Gocha"]
> [Black "Khalikian, Ovik"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [WhiteElo "2200"]
> [BlackElo "2355"]
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Qc7 7. O-O
> Nf6 8. Bg5 a6 9. Rc1 d6 10. h3 Be7 11. Qd2 O-O 12. Rfd1 Rd8 13. Qe3

I don't like 10. h3 here at all. Much too anxious. White should at once
extend
his space advantage on the queenside by 10. b4. In order to prevent
a4 Black has not much better than 10... Qb8. (10.. Nxb4? 11.Nb5 Qb8 12. Nc7+
winning the exchange) 11. Qb3 Be7 12. Na4 Bd8 13. Rfd1 0-0 14. Bxf6 gxf6
15. Qe3 and White is better.

> Ne8 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Rd2 Bd7 16. Rcd1 b5 17. a3 Na5 18. b4 Nc4 19.
> Bxc4 bxc4 20. Qe2 Rac8 21. Nd4 Bc6 22. Nxc6 Rxc6 23. Rd4 Rdc8 24. Qa2
> Qb7 25. Rb1 h6 26. Rd2 Nf6 27. f3 Rb6 28. Kh2 a5 29. Rdb2 axb4 30.
> Rxb4 Rxb4 31. Rxb4 Qc7 32. Kh1 d5 33. exd5 Nxd5 34. Nxd5 exd5 35. Qd2
> c3 36. Qc2 Qc5 37. Rb7 d4 38. Qb3 Qc4 0-1
>
> > For those of you regarding the Morra gambit as a weak opening,
> > look at the following analysis line:
> >
> > 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bb4
> > 7. O-O Nge7 8. Qb3 O-O 9. Rd1 d6 10. Be3 Qa5 11. Nb5 Rd8 12. Bf4
> > e5 13. Ng5 exf4 14. Qxf7+ Kh8 15. a3 Bc5 16. b4 Bxf2+ 17. Kh1 Qb6
> > 18. Nxd6 h6 19. Qh5 Rf8 20. Ndf7+ Rxf7 21. Nxf7+ Kg8 22. Bc4 Kf8
> > 23. Ng5 Nd8 24. Nh7# 1-0
> >
> > I leave it up to you to decide where Black blundered here.
> > These kind of lines make me confident that the Morra also
> > offers good chances in variations with a tougher black defense
> > like the above one.
>
> I really don't like Black developing the bishop to b4. It's just too
> "loose" out there and since White castles in the next move it doesn't
> even pin anything. If he does play Bb4 he ought to continue with
> 7...Bxc3 even though I would still prefer White.

Well, 6... Bb4 is playable. But the real blunder here is 10... Qa5.
This move already loses the game.

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 17 Nov 2004 06:05:43
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Claus=2DJ=FCrgen?= Heigl
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Dc Gentle wrote:
>
> "Tom Barnes" wrote:
>
> > Maybe Black should play 6...Qc7 at once to prevent Bf4, as in:
> >
> > [Event "ARM-ch U18"]
> > [Site "Yerevan"]
> > [Date "1983.??.??"]
> > [White "Toria, Gocha"]
> > [Black "Khalikian, Ovik"]
> > [Result "0-1"]
> > [WhiteElo "2200"]
> > [BlackElo "2355"]
> >
> > 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Qc7 7. O-O
> > Nf6 8. Bg5 a6 9. Rc1 d6 10. h3 Be7 11. Qd2 O-O 12. Rfd1 Rd8 13. Qe3
>
> I don't like 10. h3 here at all. Much too anxious. White should at once
> extend
> his space advantage on the queenside by 10. b4. In order to prevent
> a4 Black has not much better than 10... Qb8. (10.. Nxb4? 11.Nb5 Qb8 12. Nc7+
> winning the exchange) 11. Qb3 Be7 12. Na4 Bd8 13. Rfd1 0-0 14. Bxf6 gxf6
> 15. Qe3 and White is better.

10. b4 Be7 11. a4 Qd8. b5 isn't much of a threat here.

How about 10. Nd5? 10...exd5 11. exd5 Be7 12. dxc6 0-0 13. cxb7 Qxb7
14. Re1 looks good for White. 12...bxc6 13. Qa4 Bd7 14. Re1 0-0 15.
Bd3 Rfe8 16. Qh4 could be dangerous for Black (16...h6 17. Bxh6).

Claus-Juergen

Date: 18 Nov 2004 01:19:26
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Claus-J�rgen Heigl" wrote :
> Dc Gentle wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Barnes" wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe Black should play 6...Qc7 at once to prevent Bf4, as in:
> > >
> > > [Event "ARM-ch U18"]
> > > [Site "Yerevan"]
> > > [Date "1983.??.??"]
> > > [White "Toria, Gocha"]
> > > [Black "Khalikian, Ovik"]
> > > [Result "0-1"]
> > > [WhiteElo "2200"]
> > > [BlackElo "2355"]
> > >
> > > 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Qc7 7. O-O
> > > Nf6 8. Bg5 a6 9. Rc1 d6 10. h3 Be7 11. Qd2 O-O 12. Rfd1 Rd8 13. Qe3
> >
> > I don't like 10. h3 here at all. Much too anxious. White should at once
> > extend
> > his space advantage on the queenside by 10. b4. In order to prevent
> > a4 Black has not much better than 10... Qb8. (10.. Nxb4? 11.Nb5 Qb8 12.
Nc7+
> > winning the exchange) 11. Qb3 Be7 12. Na4 Bd8 13. Rfd1 0-0 14. Bxf6 gxf6
> > 15. Qe3 and White is better.
>
> 10. b4 Be7 11. a4 Qd8. b5 isn't much of a threat here.

well.. 10... Be7 would be rather bad for Black: 11. Bxf6 gxf6 (11... Bxf6 is
not better: 12. b5 Bxc3
(12... axb5 13. Nxb5 Qd7 14 Nxd6+ Ke7 15. Rxc6 bxc6 16. e5 Bxe5
17. Nxc8+ Rhxc8 18. Qxd7+ Kxd7 19. Nxe5+ +/-)
13. bxc6 Bf6 14. cxb7 Qxb7 15. Qxd6 Be7 16. Qf4 +/-) 12. Nd5 Qd8
13. Nxe7 Qxe7 14. Nd2 +/-

> How about 10. Nd5? 10...exd5 11. exd5 Be7 12. dxc6 0-0 13. cxb7 Qxb7

Black can play 11... Nxd5 12. Qxd5 Be6 13. Qd2 Be7 and should be ok, or not?

> 14. Re1 looks good for White. 12...bxc6 13. Qa4 Bd7 14. Re1 0-0 15.
> Bd3 Rfe8 16. Qh4 could be dangerous for Black (16...h6 17. Bxh6).
>
> Claus-Juergen

Kind regards,
DC

PS.:
I think that after 10. b4 Qb8 White can even improve by 11. a4.

Date: 11 Nov 2004 22:17:46
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Claus=2DJ=FCrgen?= Heigl
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Dc Gentle wrote:
>
> Last year Tobi and I examined the following line of the
> Morra Gambit on this news group:
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6
> 7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7
>
> After the moves 11. Rac1 O-O 12. Qc2 Rd8 13. a3 Bd7 14. Qd2 Be8
> 15. b4 Qb8 the white initiative has fizzled and Black is better.
>
> Now I propose 11. Qa3 as improvement. White has a clear
> target: Pawn d6. How to continue?
> 11... e5 12. Bg5 looks natural, and then?

Tempting is 12...d5 which attacks the queen. Now if 13. Qa4 d4 14. Nd5
Qd6 White can try 15. Nxd4 exd4 (15...Nxd5 16. exd5 exd4 (16...Qxd5??
17. Nb5 +-; 16...b5?? 17. Bxb5 +-; 16...Bxg5 17. dxc6 0-0 18. Nf3 Qf6
19. Nxg5 Qxg5 20. c7 +/-; 16...Qb4 17. Qxb4 Nxb4 18. Bxe7 Bxe7 19. Nb3
plan Nc5 +/-) 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. dxc6 0-0 19. Bf3 +/-) 16. Bf4 Qc5 17.
Nc7+ Kf8 18. Nxa8 Nxe4 19. Bf3. I think the Na8 can escape so White
should have an advantage.

In this line line Black can play 14...Nxd5 15. exd5 Bxg5 16. dxc6 b5
17. Bxb5 Bf6 18. Re1 0-0 19. Bd3 and although Black has the bishops
pair I think White is better because White's queenside pawns are more
mobile than Black's central pawns.

Black is probably better off with 14...dxe4, for example 15. Bxf6 (15.
Nxe4 0-0 16. Nxf6+ gxf6 17. Bh6 Rd8 18. Qc2 (to prevent Bf5) 18...f5
19. Bc4 Rd6 and it looks like Black consolidates) 15...exf3 16. Bxe7
Qxe7 17. Bxf3 Bd7 18. Nd5 Nd4 19. Qxd4 exd4 20. Nxe7 Kxe7 21. Rxd4
when White has only a minimal advantage because of his more active
pieces, if any.

Inferior looks 12...0-0. After 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Nd5 Qd8 White can win
back the pawn with 15. Nxf6 Qxf6 16. Rxd6. I thinks White has the
better game because Black can't check White on the d-file. If 16...Be6
17. Rad1 Rfd8 18. Qc5 Rxd6 19. Rxd6 Rd8 20. Bxa6 wins a pawn. The
counter attack 19...Qf4 20. Qb6 Re8 21. Qxb7 Nd4 22. Qxa6 also doesn't
quite work.

Claus-Juergen

Date: 11 Nov 2004 23:52:57
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Thank your for your response,
Claus J�rgen.

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6
7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5 12. Bg5 d5

I totally agree with your analysis here, and 13. Qa4 dxe4 is really better
for Black.

So I propose 13. Bxf6 Bxa3.

Is this positional queen sacrifice (!) justified?
In any case this is my point of playing 11. Qa3.
After 14. Nxd5 attacking the black queen
14... Qa5 seems best, though also 14... Qb8 is possible.
Upto now White has only got a pawn and a knight for
his queen, but more material will leave the board
in the following moves.

So what do you recommend after 14. Nxd5 ?

Kind regards,
DC

Claus-J�rgen Heigl wrote:

> Tempting is 12...d5 which attacks the queen. Now if 13. Qa4 d4 14. Nd5
> Qd6 White can try 15. Nxd4 exd4 (15...Nxd5 16. exd5 exd4 (16...Qxd5??
> 17. Nb5 +-; 16...b5?? 17. Bxb5 +-; 16...Bxg5 17. dxc6 0-0 18. Nf3 Qf6
> 19. Nxg5 Qxg5 20. c7 +/-; 16...Qb4 17. Qxb4 Nxb4 18. Bxe7 Bxe7 19. Nb3
> plan Nc5 +/-) 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. dxc6 0-0 19. Bf3 +/-) 16. Bf4 Qc5 17.
> Nc7+ Kf8 18. Nxa8 Nxe4 19. Bf3. I think the Na8 can escape so White
> should have an advantage.
>
> In this line line Black can play 14...Nxd5 15. exd5 Bxg5 16. dxc6 b5
> 17. Bxb5 Bf6 18. Re1 0-0 19. Bd3 and although Black has the bishops
> pair I think White is better because White's queenside pawns are more
> mobile than Black's central pawns.
>
> Black is probably better off with 14...dxe4, for example 15. Bxf6 (15.
> Nxe4 0-0 16. Nxf6+ gxf6 17. Bh6 Rd8 18. Qc2 (to prevent Bf5) 18...f5
> 19. Bc4 Rd6 and it looks like Black consolidates) 15...exf3 16. Bxe7
> Qxe7 17. Bxf3 Bd7 18. Nd5 Nd4 19. Qxd4 exd4 20. Nxe7 Kxe7 21. Rxd4
> when White has only a minimal advantage because of his more active
> pieces, if any.
>
> Inferior looks 12...0-0. After 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Nd5 Qd8 White can win
> back the pawn with 15. Nxf6 Qxf6 16. Rxd6. I thinks White has the
> better game because Black can't check White on the d-file. If 16...Be6
> 17. Rad1 Rfd8 18. Qc5 Rxd6 19. Rxd6 Rd8 20. Bxa6 wins a pawn. The
> counter attack 19...Qf4 20. Qb6 Re8 21. Qxb7 Nd4 22. Qxa6 also doesn't
> quite work.
>
> Claus-Juergen

Date: 12 Nov 2004 23:24:24
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Claus=2DJ=FCrgen?= Heigl
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Dc Gentle wrote:
>
> Thank your for your response,
> Claus J�rgen.
>
> I totally agree with your analysis here, and 13. Qa4 dxe4 is really better
> for Black.

I think White might be ok after 14...dxe4 15. Bxf6.

> So I propose 13. Bxf6 Bxa3.
>
> Is this positional queen sacrifice (!) justified?
> In any case this is my point of playing 11. Qa3.
> After 14. Nxd5 attacking the black queen
> 14... Qa5 seems best, though also 14... Qb8 is possible.
> So what do you recommend after 14. Nxd5 ?

Very hard to judge, but I think White has to fight for the draw.

After 14. Nxd5 Qa5 15. Bxg7 Bxb2 16. Rab1 Bd4 17. Bxh8 Qxa2 the white
queenside is gone. The outcome depends on wether White can stop the
Black pawns or not.

18. Nxd4 tries to control the black squares: 18...exd4 19. Nc7+ Kf8
20. Nxa8 Qxe2 (with two rooks against Q+P White looks ok materialwise,
but Black has those passed pawns) 21. Nb6 Be6 22. Bxd4 Qxe4 23. Bc5+
Kg7 24. Rbc1 (protects Bc5) 24...a5 25. Rc3 (wants to check on the
third rank) 25...f6. The b-pawn is blocked but Black can try to
advance the a-pawn after Qe2-b5. I'm not sure if White can build a
fortress on the third rank.

This is a very difficult endgame I would rather play as Black.

Claus-Juergen

Date: 14 Nov 2004 16:38:49
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Claus-J�rgen Heigl" wrote:
> Very hard to judge, but I think White has to fight for the draw.

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6
7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5 12. Bg5 d5
13. Bxf6 Bxa3 14. Nxd5 Qa5 15. Bxg7 Bxb2 16. Rab1 Bd4 17. Bxh8 Qxa2.

Well, I think the endgame will favor White. Let's see.

In the variant 18. Nc7+ Kf8 19. Nxd4 exd4 20. Nxa8 Qxe2 21. Bxd4
Black can answer 21... Nxd4 22. Rxd4 Qc2 23. Rbd1 b5.
Now with White's dark squared bishop gone White has
no possibility to stop Black's passed pawns and will surely lose.
On the other hand this bishop will be needed to reach a favorable
endgame, so White must avoid an exchange here.

So how about: 18. Nxd4 exd4 19. Bf3 Kf8 due to the threat Nc7
(19... Rb8 is not better: 20. Bg7 Be6 21. Nf6+ Ke7 22. Nxh7 b5 23. Ra1)
20. Nb4 Nxb4 (20... Qa5 21. Nxc6 bxc6 22. Bxd4) 21. Rxb4 Be6
22. Rbxd4 threatening 23. Bf6. It's already obvious how valuable
the bishop on h8 is because of Black's weak king position.

So how should Black continue after 22. Rbxd4 ?

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 17 Nov 2004 05:15:23
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Claus=2DJ=FCrgen?= Heigl
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Dc Gentle wrote:
>
> "Claus-J�rgen Heigl" wrote:
> > Very hard to judge, but I think White has to fight for the draw.
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6
> 7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5 12. Bg5 d5
> 13. Bxf6 Bxa3 14. Nxd5 Qa5 15. Bxg7 Bxb2 16. Rab1 Bd4 17. Bxh8 Qxa2.
>
> So how about: 18. Nxd4 exd4 19. Bf3 Kf8 due to the threat Nc7
> 20. Nb4 Nxb4 (20... Qa5 21. Nxc6 bxc6 22. Bxd4) 21. Rxb4 Be6
> 22. Rbxd4 threatening 23. Bf6. It's already obvious how valuable
> the bishop on h8 is because of Black's weak king position.
>
> So how should Black continue after 22. Rbxd4 ?

To eliminate the Nc6 which defends both the 8th rank and d4 is a
logical idea. My suggestion:

22...Bd7

Black wants to control e8, so he has a defense against Bf6 and
doubling the white rooks on an the d-file. Most important the bishop
works to check the doubled rooks on the d-file with an attack on d1
(Ba4). As White has a weak back rank this gives Black a counter to the
White threats. The white position on the d-file proves unsustainable.

White has some possibilities here.

a) 23. Rxb7 reduces Black's queenside pawns. But now Black keeps the
d-pawn.
23...Ba4 24. Rdb1 (not better is 24. Rc1 d3 and White can't stop the
pawn) 24...Bb5 25. Rc1 d3 and the black d-pawn is a winner.

b) 23. Rbxd4 Ba4 24. R4d2 (if the Rd1 leaves the d-file White has no
threats on the d-file and Black can move the pawns; 24. R1d2 Qb1+ 25.
Bd1 b5 is bad for White) 24...Qc4 25. Rd4.
Black can draw if he wants with 25...Qa2 or try to win with Qb5. After
25...Qb5 26. Rd5 is a mistake because of 26...Qc6 27. Rc6 Qc7 28. R1d2
Qc1+ 29. Bd1 b5 and the pawns are unstoppable. So the Rd1 has to leave
the d-file and Black can prepare to run the pawns.

c) 23. Bxd4. Now Ba4 is not possible because of Ra1, but the black
king is not in immediate danger any more. 23...Bc6 24. Bf6 a5 25. Rbd4
Ba4.

Anything else looks weaker since Black keeps the d-pawn and still has
Ba4.

Claus-Juergen

Date: 18 Nov 2004 18:59:57
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Claus-J�rgen Heigl" wrote:
> Black can draw if he wants with 25...Qa2 or try to win with Qb5. After
> 25...Qb5 26. Rd5 is a mistake because of 26...Qc6 27. Rc6 Qc7 28. R1d2
> Qc1+ 29. Bd1 b5 and the pawns are unstoppable. So the Rd1 has to leave
> the d-file and Black can prepare to run the pawns.

Yeah, I think you are right and I underestimated 22...Bd7.
But I don't think that's the end of my queen sac proposal.
I did a lot of analysis before I took it to this newsgroup.
In some lines Black was able to stop these 2 passed
pawns as they appeared in our line. Well, thinking over
it, White can in fact avoid that these passed pawns
come into existance so early, at least in our variant.

Here you can see how (Move 17 is new, and
there you see the "passive" bishop e2 coming into
action!)

Line A:
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7.
Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5 12. Bg5 d5
13. Bxf6 Bxa3 14. Nxd5 Qa5 15. Bxg7 Bxb2 16. Rab1 Bd4 17. Bc4 Be6
18. Bxh8 O-O-O 19. Nxd4 exd4 20. Bxd4 Nxd4 21. Rxd4 b5 22. Bb3
Bxd5 23. Bxd5 Rd7 24. h3 Kd8 25. Rd3 Ke7 26. Rf3 f6 27. Rd1 Qc7
28. Rdd3 Qc1+ 29. Kh2 b4 30. Rf5 Rd6 31. Rg3 Qh6 32. Rg4 Rd7 33.
g3 a5 34. Rh4 Qg6 35. Rhf4 a4 36. g4 b3 37. axb3 a3 38. b4 Rxd5
39. Rxd5 Qg8 40. Ra5 Qb3 41. Ra7+ Ke6 42. Rf5 Qxb4 43. Ra6+ Ke7
44. Rf3 Qd4 45. Raxa3 Kf7 46. Rae3 1-0

Well, if Black doesn't want to castle, here the alternative:

Line B:
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7.
Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5 12. Bg5 d5
13. Bxf6 Bxa3 14. Nxd5 Qa5 15. Bxg7 Bxb2 16. Rab1 Bd4 17. Bc4 Be6
18. Bxh8 b5 19. Bb3 Kf8 20. Rbc1 Rc8 21. Nxd4 exd4 22. Bf6 Qa3
23. Nb6 Rc7 24. Bxe6 fxe6 25. Bxd4 Qxa2 26. Be5 Rf7 27. Nd7+ Ke7
28. Bg3 Qe2 29. Bh4+ Ke8 30. Nf6+ Rxf6 31. Bxf6 b4 32. Rd6 Kf7
33. Bh8 Ne7 34. h3 b3 35. Rb6 Qd2 36. Rc4 Qe2 37. Rcb4 Qe1+ 38.
Kh2 Qxf2 39. Be5 h5 40. Rxb3 1-0

Both lines are identical upto move 18 of White.
For your convenience I included the identical moves.
There are two main reasons why White can win:
The torn apart black kingside and the fact that two rooks
are more flexible than a queen.

So it's up to you which line you like to comment on.
I know, I should have commented myself a bit, but the time...

Take care,
DC

Date: 22 Nov 2004 16:51:31
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Dc Gentle" wrote:

> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7.
> Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5

BTW, I am analysing the line
12. Qa4 dxe4 14. Bxf6 15. Nd5 Qd8 16. Nf4 and apparently
I was wrong declaring Black better.
On the contrary, it looks like as if White could even win here.

So in my eyes (backed by my private analysis of more than
15 years, saved in a .pgn file of more than 3900 lines,
unfortunately without commentary) the Morra Gambit in the
new form with 6. Be2 after 5... e6 is stronger than people
thought upto now. This opening that even allows a positional
queen sacrifice at move 12, has more surprises to offer
and even has the potential to refute the Sicilian defense.

Or does anybody seriously think that declining the Morra
gambit could be dangerous for White?
If yes, I'd be curious to see this line.

I wonder whether I should start wrinting a book about my
results.

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 22 Nov 2004 16:50:44
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Date: 24 Nov 2004 04:04:07
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dc Gentle" wrote:
>
>> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7.
>> Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5
>
> BTW, I am analysing the line
> 12. Qa4 dxe4 14. Bxf6 15. Nd5 Qd8 16. Nf4 and apparently
> I was wrong declaring Black better.
> On the contrary, it looks like as if White could even win here.
>
> So in my eyes (backed by my private analysis of more than
> 15 years, saved in a .pgn file of more than 3900 lines,
> unfortunately without commentary) the Morra Gambit in the
> new form with 6. Be2 after 5... e6 is stronger than people
> thought upto now. This opening that even allows a positional
> queen sacrifice at move 12, has more surprises to offer
> and even has the potential to refute the Sicilian defense.

OK, stop right there, hold the presses! The defense used by every modern
world champion -- including Fischer and Kasparov -- has the potential to be
refuted!! Yep, you heard it here folks. Right here on RGCA!! White can
sacrifice a pawn on the third move, calmly develop his pieces to even
slightly passive squares and BOOM!! refute the defense that scores the best
percentage of any in grandmaster play.

First, you don't "refute" a defense by suggesting, as below, that declining
the Morra isn't dangerous to white. If you are suggesting that the ...Nf6
lines of the Alapin are equal, then you haven't refuted the Sicilian --
equality with white hardly refutes any black defense.

Second, give these inferior GMs some credit -- if a strong player like you
shows play for white, they will find it and pick up on it. Kasparov earlier
must have found your analysis of the Evans Gambit, Shirov of your g4 spike
in the Meran, and Benko of your ...b5 thrust in the Benoni. Just give it
time, I'm sure they'll catch up with your earth shattering development.

On the other hand, those were all sacrifices of wing pawns.... hmmmmmm.....

Randy Bauer
>
> Or does anybody seriously think that declining the Morra
> gambit could be dangerous for White?
> If yes, I'd be curious to see this line.
>
> I wonder whether I should start wrinting a book about my
> results.
>
> Kind regards,
> DC
>
>
>
>

Date: 24 Nov 2004 09:14:25
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Randy Bauer wrote:

> OK, stop right there, hold the presses! ...

Yes, I'll think twice before I'll claim something that can
be proven wrong easily. And I can't claim having refuted
the Sicilian, oh no. Chess is a rich game, and it's so
easy to overlook something. And if I'll ever write a book,
then I won't do it alone. My only point up to now is, that
the Morra may be stronger than assumed.
Even if White doesn't sac the queen, there still are
chances to win.

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 24 Nov 2004 13:58:11
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Randy Bauer wrote:
>
>> OK, stop right there, hold the presses! ...
>
> Yes, I'll think twice before I'll claim something that can
> be proven wrong easily. And I can't claim having refuted
> the Sicilian, oh no. Chess is a rich game, and it's so
> easy to overlook something. And if I'll ever write a book,
> then I won't do it alone. My only point up to now is, that
> the Morra may be stronger than assumed.
> Even if White doesn't sac the queen, there still are
> chances to win.
>
> Kind regards,
> DC
>

I agree about chess being a rich game, and I don't doubt that the Morra is
playable at most levels. I've lost to the Morra twice in tournament play,
although both of those were before I made master. IM James Rizzitano, in
his excellent book "Understanding your Chess" includes 3 of his efforts as
white as a young player against GMs -- all were exciting games where the
opening didn't serve white all that badly. Rizzitano quotes GM Dorian
Rogozenko from his book on the Anti-Sicilians, where that author recommends
3...Nf6 (declining the gambit): "I am convinced that in the 2c3 Sicilian
White has no advantage at all, while the Morra Gambit is less explored at
high levels and there are several unclear positions in which White enjoys
the initiative for the pawn."

So, I guess that is my roundabout way of agreeing with you (the Morra may be
stronger than assumed). However, I don't think at world class level, i.e.,
with a Kramnik or Anand defending against the gambit, that white would be
all that successful.

Randy Bauer

Date: 30 Nov 2004 19:17:52
From: Ron
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

In article <Tr0pd.454927$D%.79467@attbi_s51 >,
"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > wrote:

> So, I guess that is my roundabout way of agreeing with you (the Morra may be
> stronger than assumed). However, I don't think at world class level, i.e.,
> with a Kramnik or Anand defending against the gambit, that white would be
> all that successful.

You're almost certainly correct -- but then again, before 1995, wouldn't
we all have said the same thing about the Evans gambit? "Sure, it's fun,
but the defending at the highest level is so strong that it's useless in
top level play. A player like Kasparov would be successful with it
against his top challenger -- or even a strong up-and-comer like Jeroen
Piket."

I'm not claiming that the Mora is neccesarily that good. My experience
with it is limited to blitz games, where I find that even if my opponent
defends properly I simply get a position where, at the cost of a pawn, I
have clear, easy-to-implement plans and am familiar with the position
(and I freely admit that my experience is essentially irrelevant to
titled players).

It's also worth remembering that a lot of gambits which OTB GMs disdain
show up in high-level correspondence play.

Personally, I think many class players (at least) get far too caught up
whether or not a gambit is a first-choice weapon of GMs. There are a lot
of "ginal" gambits -- the BDG, the Evans, the Morra, the Diemer-Dunn,
which can be very effective when (as is the case for most of us) you're
not facing IMs and GMs or even experts.

I've won a lot of games online with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2?!
-- after Alekhine, of course -- dxe4 5.a3. Even in repeated games
against the same player at moderate time controls, I've seen
Nimzovitches 5. ... Bxc3+ 6.Nxc3 f5?!; the ginal improvement 6....
Nf6, Euwe's 5. ... Be7 ... and only very rarely the correct reply,
5.Bxc3+ Nxc3 6.Nc6, in which case the game will be messy but I'm only
ginally worse -- which can be compensated for by my familiarity with
the position.

I mean, let's face it. Even a strong class player isn't too likely to
find moves that eluded Nimzovitch and Euwe over the board, now, is he?
And in how many openings do you give your opponent an opportunity to
make a plausible move that gives you a roaring attack on move 5?

Date: 01 Dec 2004 21:10:07
From: Nick
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

All very true, even at grandmaster level, with the ever faster time
controls we are starting to see openings played that would of been
unthinkable twenty years ago. Endgames are becoming less important
as time goes by. Now its the initiative, combined with clock pressure
that tends to net the full point.
Nick
www.chesstipster.com

> You're almost certainly correct -- but then again, before 1995, wouldn't
> we all have said the same thing about the Evans gambit? "Sure, it's fun,
> but the defending at the highest level is so strong that it's useless in
> top level play. A player like Kasparov would be successful with it
> against his top challenger -- or even a strong up-and-comer like Jeroen
> Piket."
>
> I'm not claiming that the Mora is neccesarily that good. My experience
> with it is limited to blitz games, where I find that even if my opponent
> defends properly I simply get a position where, at the cost of a pawn, I
> have clear, easy-to-implement plans and am familiar with the position
> (and I freely admit that my experience is essentially irrelevant to
> titled players).
>
> It's also worth remembering that a lot of gambits which OTB GMs disdain
> show up in high-level correspondence play.
>
> Personally, I think many class players (at least) get far too caught up
> whether or not a gambit is a first-choice weapon of GMs. There are a lot
> of "ginal" gambits -- the BDG, the Evans, the Morra, the Diemer-Dunn,
> which can be very effective when (as is the case for most of us) you're
> not facing IMs and GMs or even experts.
>
> I've won a lot of games online with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2?!
> -- after Alekhine, of course -- dxe4 5.a3. Even in repeated games
> against the same player at moderate time controls, I've seen
> Nimzovitches 5. ... Bxc3+ 6.Nxc3 f5?!; the ginal improvement 6....
> Nf6, Euwe's 5. ... Be7 ... and only very rarely the correct reply,
> 5.Bxc3+ Nxc3 6.Nc6, in which case the game will be messy but I'm only
> ginally worse -- which can be compensated for by my familiarity with
> the position.
>
> I mean, let's face it. Even a strong class player isn't too likely to
> find moves that eluded Nimzovitch and Euwe over the board, now, is he?
> And in how many openings do you give your opponent an opportunity to
> make a plausible move that gives you a roaring attack on move 5?

Date: 22 Nov 2004 20:52:47
From: mateuin1
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote in news:41a20b33$0$170
[email protected]:

>
> "Dc Gentle" wrote:
>
>> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7.
>> Bf4 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3 e5
>
> BTW, I am analysing the line
> 12. Qa4 dxe4 14. Bxf6 15. Nd5 Qd8 16. Nf4 and apparently
> I was wrong declaring Black better.
> On the contrary, it looks like as if White could even win here.
>
> So in my eyes (backed by my private analysis of more than
> 15 years, saved in a .pgn file of more than 3900 lines,
> unfortunately without commentary) the Morra Gambit in the
> new form with 6. Be2 after 5... e6 is stronger than people
> thought upto now. This opening that even allows a positional
> queen sacrifice at move 12, has more surprises to offer
> and even has the potential to refute the Sicilian defense.
>
> Or does anybody seriously think that declining the Morra
> gambit could be dangerous for White?
> If yes, I'd be curious to see this line.
>
> I wonder whether I should start wrinting a book about my
> results.
>
> Kind regards,
> DC
>
>
>
>

I wish you would write an article on it DC. And, I'd like to have a copy
of that .pgn too. Interesting stuff. Sound? I'm not rated near high
enough to comment. But, your posts are helping to educate me, that's for
sure.

-mateuin1

Date: 13 Nov 2004 18:55:41
From:
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:24:24 +0100, Claus-J�rgen Heigl
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Dc Gentle wrote:
>>
>> Thank your for your response,
>> Claus J�rgen.
>>
>> I totally agree with your analysis here, and 13. Qa4 dxe4 is really better
>> for Black.
>
>I think White might be ok after 14...dxe4 15. Bxf6.
>
>> So I propose 13. Bxf6 Bxa3.
>>
>> Is this positional queen sacrifice (!) justified?
>> In any case this is my point of playing 11. Qa3.
>> After 14. Nxd5 attacking the black queen
>> 14... Qa5 seems best, though also 14... Qb8 is possible.
>> So what do you recommend after 14. Nxd5 ?
>
>Very hard to judge, but I think White has to fight for the draw.
>
>After 14. Nxd5 Qa5 15. Bxg7 Bxb2 16. Rab1 Bd4 17. Bxh8 Qxa2 the white
>queenside is gone. The outcome depends on wether White can stop the
>Black pawns or not.
>
>18. Nxd4 tries to control the black squares: 18...exd4 19. Nc7+ Kf8
>20. Nxa8 Qxe2 (with two rooks against Q+P White looks ok materialwise,
>but Black has those passed pawns) 21. Nb6 Be6 22. Bxd4 Qxe4 23. Bc5+
>Kg7 24. Rbc1 (protects Bc5) 24...a5 25. Rc3 (wants to check on the
>third rank) 25...f6. The b-pawn is blocked but Black can try to
>advance the a-pawn after Qe2-b5. I'm not sure if White can build a
>fortress on the third rank.
>
>This is a very difficult endgame I would rather play as Black.
>
>Claus-Juergen

I didn't mean to interrup this fascinating discussion of the Smith
Morra...as I find it interesting to discuss this one at all. No books
out there talk about the Smith Morra Gambit.

I really do wonder why the GM's don't use this one as a surprise
weapon in tournament play. I bet if someone like Kasparov would unveil
it in an important match people would suddenly take a serious look at
it. Or perhaps an unknown player suddenly coming up the ranks and is
able to use the Smith Morra as a seriously dangerous weapon.

Personally, I've had good results using this gambit against strong
Sicilian players as White. Sure, White gives up a pawn but in return
gets a huge advantage in development. I would love to hear if some of
the real big shots like Alexander Morozevich using the Smith Morra
Gambit line successfully.

We need to get the big guns to start using this weapon in tournament
play before we can say with definitiveness that the Smith Morra is
either sound or extremly risky for White.

Date: 15 Nov 2004 12:59:26
From: Henri Arsenault
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:

>I didn't mean to interrup this fascinating discussion of the Smith
>Morra...as I find it interesting to discuss this one at all. No books
>out there talk about the Smith Morra Gambit.
>
There are at least two books about the Smith-Morra Gambit...

Henri

Date: 15 Nov 2004 13:44:33
From: Douglas L Stewart
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

I have "Smith-Morra Accepted", and that is just a game collection (and
the games aren't even very good). In the context of 3 million game
databases I don't consider a game collection without much in the way of
annotations a very helpful chess book these days. What is the other book?

---
Douglas L Stewart
[email protected]
President, Mississippi Chess Association
http://www.mcachess.org

Henri Arsenault wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>>I didn't mean to interrup this fascinating discussion of the Smith
>>Morra...as I find it interesting to discuss this one at all. No books
>>out there talk about the Smith Morra Gambit.
>>
>
> There are at least two books about the Smith-Morra Gambit...
>
> Henri

Date: 15 Nov 2004 21:36:50
From: Mike Ogush
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Here is what I know about "book" on the Morra Gambit.

Several pamphlets were authored by Ken Smith and one book was authored
by IM Janos Flesch from the mid-70's to early 80's. The material by
Smith is NOT unbiased, much of it tries to show that White can get an
advantge from the opening. I have not read Flesch's book but have
been told it is a blalnced treatment.
* Sicilian: Smith-Morra Gambit Declined - - Ken Smith, Chess,
Digest 1973.
* Sicilian: Smith-Morra Gambit Accepted - - Ken Smith, Chess,
Digest 1973.
* Smith-Morra Gambit Theory 1846 - '67 - Ken Smith, Chess, Digest
1974.
* Smith-Morra Gambit Theory 1968 - '73 - Ken Smith, Chess, Digest
1974.
* The Morra (Smith) Gambit - Janos Flesch, Batsford, 1981.
* 2.P-QB3 v The Sicilian & Smith Morra Gambit - Ken Smith, Chess,
Digest 1982.

During the 1990s several books that were just reporting on trends in
the opening were written in the 1990s. The one exception the period
was Burgess's treatment of the opening. Despite the title Burgess'
book is a fairly balanced treatment. [Aside: a number of the games in
the Smith & Wall books will not be found in most databases.]
* Developments in the Smith-Morra Gambit - N. Carr, Quandrant,
1990.
* Smith-Morra Accepted A Game Collection - Ken Smith & Bill Wall,
1992
* Smith-Morra Declind A Game Collection - Ken Smith & Bill Wall,
1993
* Winning with the Smith Morra Gambit - Graham Burgess, Henry Holt,

1994
* Trends in the Smith Morra Gambit Volume 2 - Natasha Regan & Susan

Lalic, 1997.
* Trends in the Smith Morra Gambit - Natasha Regan & Susan Lalic,
1997.

The 2000s saw published two books on variations to beat the gambit, by
IM Taylor and IMs Finegold and Ciaffone along with a second fairly
unbiased attempt to cover all the viations of the gambit by Palkovi,
who I believe is IM strength.
* Smith-Morra Gambit Finegold Defense - Ben Finegold and Bob
Ciaffone, 2000.
* Morra Gambit - Jozsef Palkovi, Caissa Chess Books, 2000
* How to Defeat the Smith Morra Gambit: 6�a6 - Timothy Taylor,
2002.
* The Main Line Smith-Morra Gambit Accepted - Jim Bickford, Syzygy
Publishing, 2002.
* The Dragon vs. Smith-Morra Gambit Accepted - Jim Bickford,
Syzygy Publishing, 2002.

Many of these books are somewhat obscure and hard to come by.
Fortunately the two recent and fairly balanced looks at the opening
(the Burgess book and the Palkovi book) can be found at on-line book
stores.

Mike Ogush

'
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:44:33 GMT, Douglas L Stewart
<[email protected] > wrote:

>I have "Smith-Morra Accepted", and that is just a game collection (and
>the games aren't even very good). In the context of 3 million game
>databases I don't consider a game collection without much in the way of
>annotations a very helpful chess book these days. What is the other book?
>
>---
>Douglas L Stewart
>[email protected]
>President, Mississippi Chess Association
>http://www.mcachess.org
>
>Henri Arsenault wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I didn't mean to interrup this fascinating discussion of the Smith
>>>Morra...as I find it interesting to discuss this one at all. No books
>>>out there talk about the Smith Morra Gambit.
>>>
>>
>> There are at least two books about the Smith-Morra Gambit...
>>
>> Henri

Date: 16 Nov 2004 11:19:38
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Thanks for the list.

* Morra Gambit - Jozsef Palkovi, Caissa Chess Books, 2000

I own this book, but the 6. Be2 line is not mentioned there, as
far as I know. Otherwise this book mainly discusses games
played in the past and tries to be very exhaustive.
Neverless the suggested variants can't stand computer analysis
sometimes.

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 14 Nov 2004 17:37:27
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> I really do wonder why the GM's don't use this one as a surprise
> weapon in tournament play. I bet if someone like Kasparov would unveil
> it in an important match people would suddenly take a serious look at
> it. Or perhaps an unknown player suddenly coming up the ranks and is
> able to use the Smith Morra as a seriously dangerous weapon.

BDG players have the same question.

Maybe the answer is that those type of positions can be aceptable with
black but not with white.

AT

Date: 11 Nov 2004 09:11:48
From: Strater
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

I don't understand why White's bishop is better at e2 than c4?

In the best case scenario for White, he gets long-term pressure on d6 and
control of the d5 square as compensation for his pawn.

Bc4 (or Bb3 or Ba2) seems to fit in with this plan better than Be2.

Date: 11 Nov 2004 15:33:54
From: Luigi Caselli
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Strater" <[email protected] > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected]...
> I don't understand why White's bishop is better at e2 than c4?
>
> In the best case scenario for White, he gets long-term pressure on d6 and
> control of the d5 square as compensation for his pawn.
>
> Bc4 (or Bb3 or Ba2) seems to fit in with this plan better than Be2.

Maybe because in that variation Black can attack the bishop with plans like
...a6, b5 or ...e6, d5

Luigi Caselli

Date: 11 Nov 2004 17:59:58
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Exactly, in the Morra gambit every tempo is crucial
and in the e6-variation the light squared bishop
must not deliver a target for Black because White's
aim is to get the superior development.

As you can see in the second analysis line, there
often is the opportunity for this bishop to
show up on c4 later in the game, and then with
a real threat. As a side effect, 6. Be2 prevents
a possible pin of Nf3 by Black's queensite bishop
and the white queen on b3 is even more powerful
than the bishop on c4.

Kind regards,

DC

> > I don't understand why White's bishop is better at e2 than c4?
> >
> > In the best case scenario for White, he gets long-term pressure on d6
and
> > control of the d5 square as compensation for his pawn.
> >
> > Bc4 (or Bb3 or Ba2) seems to fit in with this plan better than Be2.
>
> Maybe because in that variation Black can attack the bishop with plans
like
> ...a6, b5 or ...e6, d5
>
> Luigi Caselli
>
>

Date: 13 Nov 2004 16:28:41
From: Douglas L Stewart
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

I still think the bishop belongs on c4. That's the main line in ECO I
believe, in my Fritz books, in my game databases, and in my opinion. I
have 1801 games with 6 Bc4 and 7 games with 6 Be2.

I think 6 Be2 starts to squander any development advantage that White
has in return for the pawn.

---
Douglas L Stewart
[email protected]
President, Mississippi Chess Association
http://www.mcachess.org

Dc Gentle wrote:
> Exactly, in the Morra gambit every tempo is crucial
> and in the e6-variation the light squared bishop
> must not deliver a target for Black because White's
> aim is to get the superior development.
>
> As you can see in the second analysis line, there
> often is the opportunity for this bishop to
> show up on c4 later in the game, and then with
> a real threat. As a side effect, 6. Be2 prevents
> a possible pin of Nf3 by Black's queensite bishop
> and the white queen on b3 is even more powerful
> than the bishop on c4.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> DC
>
>
>>>I don't understand why White's bishop is better at e2 than c4?
>>>
>>>In the best case scenario for White, he gets long-term pressure on d6
>
> and
>
>>>control of the d5 square as compensation for his pawn.
>>>
>>>Bc4 (or Bb3 or Ba2) seems to fit in with this plan better than Be2.
>>
>>Maybe because in that variation Black can attack the bishop with plans
>
> like
>
>>...a6, b5 or ...e6, d5
>>
>>Luigi Caselli
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Date: 13 Nov 2004 19:51:32
From: Strater
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Douglas L Stewart" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I still think the bishop belongs on c4. That's the main line in ECO I
> believe, in my Fritz books, in my game databases, and in my opinion. I
> have 1801 games with 6 Bc4 and 7 games with 6 Be2.
>
> I think 6 Be2 starts to squander any development advantage that White
> has in return for the pawn.
>

I agree. White is fighting an uphill battle being a pawn dawn, and Be2
doesn't help things any. While ...a6 is almost always a good move for
Black, ...b5 is a different story. I just don't see that Black is
threatening to gain a tempo with ...b5, and it makes little sense to just
give him one by playing Be2. For one thing, control of d5 is crucial to
White's compensation. For another, e2 is a much better square for the Q than
the Bishop.

You could also argue that a move like a3 has some useful qualities, but the
net effect is that it just wastes time.

You can churn out all the analysis you want. You might even win a lot of
games with Be2. Still doesn't make it right.

That said, it doesn't lose, either. If someone feels comfortable with the
positions that arise from Be2, more power to them.

Date: 14 Nov 2004 11:47:27
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Douglas L Stewart" wrote
> > I still think the bishop belongs on c4. That's the main line in ECO I
> > believe, in my Fritz books, in my game databases, and in my opinion. I
> > have 1801 games with 6 Bc4 and 7 games with 6 Be2.

and Strater agreed.

You are right that Bc4 is standard even in the ECO,
because it's a good move if Black plays 5. d6.
6... e6 is forced and Black has a cramped position
already.
So I fully agree here because the plan a6, b5
attacking the bishop doesn't really work.

But what if Black plays 5. e6 ?
Let's look at an example line:

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4
7. O-O Nge7.

Obviously it's hard to find a good plan for White here,
because the bishop on b4 is rather disturbing and the bishop
on c4 is biting on granite at the pawn structure e6-f7.
I think White has lost the initiative already. Bc4 has no
future on c4.

An even more telling line is the following one:

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4

Here Black has even gained the initiative and developed their
worrychild bishop to b7! No wonder that masters don't play the Morra
if White is giving away a pawn for nothing apparently.
I think that's the common sense among grandmasters.

When I first saw this line, my immediate thought was:
4... a6? What's that? Can't be, I don't believe it.
But I needed a lot of experimenting before I decided
that Bc4 is bad in this e6-variation, believe me.
Bc4 is kinda dogma in Morra theory.

Nowadays I would play against 4... a6 like in the
following line:

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Nc6 7.
O-O Nf6 8. e5 Ng4 9. Bf4 Qc7 10. Rc1 f6 11. Bg3 Ngxe5 12. Nxe5
fxe5 13. Re1 g6 14. Nd5 exd5 15. Bxe5 Qxe5 16. Bf3 Bg7 17. Rxe5+
Bxe5 18. Qxd5 Bf6 19. Re1+ Ne7 20. g4 g5 21. Bd1 Rf8 22. f4 h6
23. h4 a5 24. fxg5 hxg5 25. hxg5 Bxb2 26. Qc5 Rf7 27. Bc2 b6 28.
Qd5 Rg7 29. Qxa8 and Black can resign.

Here you can see, White has got the initiative from the very start
upto the bitter end for Black.

Fortunately after
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6
White can play 5. Nf3 and then decide whether
to play Bc4 or not:
If Black plays 5... d6 then yes, if 5... e6 then no.

Hope this helps,
DC

Date: 15 Nov 2004 00:19:55
From: Douglas L Stewart
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Dc Gentle wrote:

> But what if Black plays 5. e6 ?
> Let's look at an example line:
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4
> 7. O-O Nge7.
>
> Obviously it's hard to find a good plan for White here,
> because the bishop on b4 is rather disturbing and the bishop
> on c4 is biting on granite at the pawn structure e6-f7.
> I think White has lost the initiative already. Bc4 has no
> future on c4.

In my database this scores 60% for White after 7 .. Nge7. Fritz 8
thinks the position is even - and you know if you are down material and
Fritz thinks you are even you are probably winning. Also this line is
in ECO and ends in slight advantage for White. I hardly consider
White's initiative lost.

> An even more telling line is the following one:
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
> 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4
>
> Here Black has even gained the initiative and developed their
> worrychild bishop to b7! No wonder that masters don't play the Morra
> if White is giving away a pawn for nothing apparently.
> I think that's the common sense among grandmasters.
>
> When I first saw this line, my immediate thought was:
> 4... a6? What's that? Can't be, I don't believe it.
> But I needed a lot of experimenting before I decided
> that Bc4 is bad in this e6-variation, believe me.
> Bc4 is kinda dogma in Morra theory.

The 4 .. a6 line is nothing to be worried about. It may not always be
best to put the bishop on c4 immediately in this line, but there are
plenty of other good developing moves such as Nf3, Bf4, etc. If Black
insists on playing a really early .. b5 you'll put the bishop on d3.
These are the kinds of lines where White has to look for a plan that is
somewhat different than he might be used to seeing in .. d6 lines, but I
find White has plenty of positional and tactical compensation in lines
like this.

I don't believe there is a clear refutation to the Smith-Morra Gambit
and I play it from both sides. Black's best bet is 3 .. Nf6!

---
Douglas L Stewart
[email protected]
President, Mississippi Chess Association
http://www.mcachess.org

Date: 14 Nov 2004 17:42:36
From: Doctor SBD
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Nc6 7.
>O-O Nf6 8. e5 Ng4 9. Bf4 Qc7 10. Rc1 f6 11. Bg3 Ngxe5 12. Nxe5
>fxe5 13. Re1 g6

This shows nothing but horribly weak play by Black starting with 7 ... Nf6?. I
doubt anyone over 1500 would play this way.

If Bc4 is so bad, and White is forced to play Be2, then one can simply consider
the Morra refuted. Both your positional and tactical compensation after Be2 are
so small we can consider Black a pawn up for nothing. To make up fantasy
variations proves nothing.

SBD

Date: 14 Nov 2004 21:40:12
From: Tom Barnes
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

[email protected] (Doctor SBD) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> >1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Nc6 7.
> >O-O Nf6 8. e5 Ng4 9. Bf4 Qc7 10. Rc1 f6 11. Bg3 Ngxe5 12. Nxe5
> >fxe5 13. Re1 g6
>
> This shows nothing but horribly weak play by Black starting with 7 ... Nf6?. I
> doubt anyone over 1500 would play this way.
>
> If Bc4 is so bad, and White is forced to play Be2, then one can simply consider
> the Morra refuted. Both your positional and tactical compensation after Be2 are
> so small we can consider Black a pawn up for nothing. To make up fantasy
> variations proves nothing.
>
> SBD

These are not fantasy variations, these are Fritz variations. Both
this line and the second line in the initial posts are lines where
Fritz initially favors Black but at move 20 or so Fritz shows White as
winning. Doctor SBD must have spend a lot of time coming up with
"deceiving" lines like this!

Regardless of the validity of the lines, if Fritz can't make them out
then sure, they must be playable for most humans!?

Date: 14 Nov 2004 17:00:13
From: Tom Barnes
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

[email protected] (Doctor SBD) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> >1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Nc6 7.
> >O-O Nf6 8. e5 Ng4 9. Bf4 Qc7 10. Rc1 f6 11. Bg3 Ngxe5 12. Nxe5
> >fxe5 13. Re1 g6
>
> This shows nothing but horribly weak play by Black starting with 7 ... Nf6?. I
> doubt anyone over 1500 would play this way.
>
> If Bc4 is so bad, and White is forced to play Be2, then one can simply consider
> the Morra refuted. Both your positional and tactical compensation after Be2 are
> so small we can consider Black a pawn up for nothing. To make up fantasy
> variations proves nothing.
>
> SBD

I'm a fairly strong player (USCF/ELO 1850) who has been playing the
Sicilian for 15 years. I've never been particular afraid of the Morra
gambit but I have to say that the lines "DC Gentle" presents are
pretty good! I know that Be2 seems odd (it did to me too at first) but
if you look at it a little more it kind of makes sense.

Look at his "main line":
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7. Bf4
d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3

I think White is actually slightly better and Fritz 7 agrees. How do
you as Black proceed here?

Date: 15 Nov 2004 15:55:58
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Tom Barnes" wrote:

> Look at his "main line":
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7. Bf4
> d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qb3 Be7 10. Rfd1 Qc7 11. Qa3
>
> I think White is actually slightly better and Fritz 7 agrees. How do
> you as Black proceed here?

Claus-J�rgen Heigl and I are involved in a discussion of
this line here in this thread. After 11... e5 12. Bg5 d5
I will play the positional queen sac 13. Bxf6 Bxa3.

BTW, Fritz is a nice tool, but not more,
Computer programs are not infallible because
of the horizon effect.
The analyst has to put own efforts into the analysis.

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 14 Nov 2004 12:17:49
From: Ron
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Doctor SBD) wrote:

> If Bc4 is so bad, and White is forced to play Be2, then one can simply
> consider
> the Morra refuted. Both your positional and tactical compensation after Be2
> are
> so small we can consider Black a pawn up for nothing.

That's a pretty bold statement.

Why don't you provide some variations to back it up? Or at least
actually try to refute DC's "Fantasy variations."

Date: 14 Nov 2004 21:21:05
From: Doctor SBD
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

What variations are needed when the play on the Black side is presented so
weakly?

Nf6? is a stupid move for Black, and it doesnt get better from there.

You can find master games with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5?! but I cannot find a single
one with his Be2 variation. That says a lot.

I would suggest that deviations from theory need to be proven good, instead of
asking me to prove them bad in the light of a lack of quality games.

SBD

Date: 14 Nov 2004 11:42:11
From:
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:47:27 +0100, "Dc Gentle" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>"Douglas L Stewart" wrote
>> > I still think the bishop belongs on c4. That's the main line in ECO I
>> > believe, in my Fritz books, in my game databases, and in my opinion. I
>> > have 1801 games with 6 Bc4 and 7 games with 6 Be2.
>
>and Strater agreed.
>
>You are right that Bc4 is standard even in the ECO,
>because it's a good move if Black plays 5. d6.
>6... e6 is forced and Black has a cramped position
>already.
>So I fully agree here because the plan a6, b5
>attacking the bishop doesn't really work.
>
>But what if Black plays 5. e6 ?
>Let's look at an example line:
>
>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4
>7. O-O Nge7.
>
>Obviously it's hard to find a good plan for White here,
>because the bishop on b4 is rather disturbing and the bishop
>on c4 is biting on granite at the pawn structure e6-f7.
>I think White has lost the initiative already. Bc4 has no
>future on c4.
>
>An even more telling line is the following one:
>
>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
>7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4
>
>Here Black has even gained the initiative and developed their
>worrychild bishop to b7! No wonder that masters don't play the Morra
>if White is giving away a pawn for nothing apparently.
>I think that's the common sense among grandmasters.
>
>When I first saw this line, my immediate thought was:
>4... a6? What's that? Can't be, I don't believe it.
>But I needed a lot of experimenting before I decided
>that Bc4 is bad in this e6-variation, believe me.
>Bc4 is kinda dogma in Morra theory.

Wait a minute right there. After 11...b4 White can respond with 12.Na4
e5 13. Bd2 a5 and then the kicker...14. Bc2! defending the e4 pawn and
now the threat is 15. Re1 relieving duty of the White queen defending
the e4 pawn allowing an eventual Qb5 putting pressure on the
undefended black bishop on b7.
>
>Nowadays I would play against 4... a6 like in the
>following line:
>
>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Nc6 7.
>O-O Nf6 8. e5 Ng4 9. Bf4 Qc7 10. Rc1 f6 11. Bg3 Ngxe5 12. Nxe5
>fxe5 13. Re1 g6 14. Nd5 exd5 15. Bxe5 Qxe5 16. Bf3 Bg7 17. Rxe5+
>Bxe5 18. Qxd5 Bf6 19. Re1+ Ne7 20. g4 g5 21. Bd1 Rf8 22. f4 h6
>23. h4 a5 24. fxg5 hxg5 25. hxg5 Bxb2 26. Qc5 Rf7 27. Bc2 b6 28.
>Qd5 Rg7 29. Qxa8 and Black can resign.
>
>Here you can see, White has got the initiative from the very start
>upto the bitter end for Black.
>
>Fortunately after
>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6
>White can play 5. Nf3 and then decide whether
>to play Bc4 or not:
>If Black plays 5... d6 then yes, if 5... e6 then no.
>
>Hope this helps,
>DC
>
>
>

Date: 14 Nov 2004 21:41:01
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4

Alberich wrote:

> Wait a minute right there. After 11...b4 White can respond with 12.Na4
> e5 13. Bd2 a5 and then the kicker...14. Bc2! defending the e4 pawn and
> now the threat is 15. Re1 relieving duty of the White queen defending
> the e4 pawn allowing an eventual Qb5 putting pressure on the
> undefended black bishop on b7.

well, after 11... b4 12. Na4 Black can simply play 12... Nxe4 or not?
(13. Nd2 Nec5, 13. Rac1 Rc8)

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 14 Nov 2004 21:15:18
From:
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:41:01 +0100, "Dc Gentle" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
>7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4
>
>Alberich wrote:
>
>> Wait a minute right there. After 11...b4 White can respond with 12.Na4
>> e5 13. Bd2 a5 and then the kicker...14. Bc2! defending the e4 pawn and
>> now the threat is 15. Re1 relieving duty of the White queen defending
>> the e4 pawn allowing an eventual Qb5 putting pressure on the
>> undefended black bishop on b7.
>
>well, after 11... b4 12. Na4 Black can simply play 12... Nxe4 or not?
>(13. Nd2 Nec5, 13. Rac1 Rc8)
>
>Kind regards,
>DC

As to your immediate grab for the e4 pawn with 12...Nxe4 which in my
opinion is terrible...this is what would happen...13. Bc2 d5 14. Nd2
Ndc5 15. Nxc5 Bxc5 16. Nxe4 Qb6 17. Ng5 Bxf2+ 18. Kh1 O-O 19. Bxh7+
Kh8 20. Qh5 e5 21. Bg6+ Kg8 22. Qh7# 1-0

Date: 15 Nov 2004 12:12:54
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

Alberich wrote:

> As to your immediate grab for the e4 pawn with 12...Nxe4 which in my
> opinion is terrible...this is what would happen...13. Bc2 d5 14. Nd2
> Ndc5 15. Nxc5 Bxc5 16. Nxe4 Qb6 17. Ng5 Bxf2+ 18. Kh1 O-O 19. Bxh7+
> Kh8 20. Qh5 e5 21. Bg6+ Kg8 22. Qh7# 1-0

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4
12.Na4 Nxe4 13. Bc2

Ok, show me how you would compensate the loss of your
knight after

13... bxc3

(Don't you think it's over?)

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 15 Nov 2004 13:06:18
From:
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:12:54 +0100, "Dc Gentle" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>
>Alberich wrote:
>
>> As to your immediate grab for the e4 pawn with 12...Nxe4 which in my
>> opinion is terrible...this is what would happen...13. Bc2 d5 14. Nd2
>> Ndc5 15. Nxc5 Bxc5 16. Nxe4 Qb6 17. Ng5 Bxf2+ 18. Kh1 O-O 19. Bxh7+
>> Kh8 20. Qh5 e5 21. Bg6+ Kg8 22. Qh7# 1-0
>
>
>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
>7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4
>12.Na4 Nxe4 13. Bc2
>
>Ok, show me how you would compensate the loss of your
>knight after
>
>13... bxc3
>
>(Don't you think it's over?)

Uh...I think you're missing a move here. Because there can't be a
13...bxc3 because the black pawn is still on b4. You might be
referring to either 13...Bc6 threatening the knight on a4 or perhaps
13...Qa5...again putting pressure on the knight on a4. But in either
case...the answer is 14.b3...defending the knight. And if 14...Nc3
forking the Queen and Rook...then 15. Nxc3 bxc3 16.Rac1 Bb5 17. Bd3.

No, it's not over.

Date: 15 Nov 2004 22:30:05
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5
7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O Nd7 10. Rd1 Ngf6 11. Bf4 b4
12.Na4 Nxe4 13. Bc2

Oh sorry, I dunno what happend.. most likely I was in
a variant somehow...

13... Nef6

Well... if you want continue..
I think the case for White is rather hopeless....

Kind regards,
DC

Date: 12 Nov 2004 16:50:28
From: fs
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Exactly, in the Morra gambit every tempo is crucial
> and in the e6-variation the light squared bishop
> must not deliver a target for Black because White's
> aim is to get the superior development.
<snip >

I'm happy to see a Morra gambit thread - I

With tempo so important, why 6...a6 instead of Nf6 or d6 right off? Or
even the mundane 6...Bb4 7.O-O Bxc3 8.bxc3 d5 9.exd5 Qxd5 and black doesn't
seem to have too many problems.

Date: 12 Nov 2004 20:34:55
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: The Morra gambit? Why not!

"fs" wrote:
> I'm happy to see a Morra gambit thread - I

You are welcome! Chess players generally are rather
sceptical about this opening, and going over the
lines of the known theory I can't blame them for their
thinking. Especially kown e6-variations need a
revision. In my opinion the Morra is being vastly
underestimated though.

>
> With tempo so important, why 6...a6 instead of Nf6 or d6 right off?

Well, first I also thought 6... a6 is a waste of time, but
as you can see in my analysis game, White is threatening Nb5
sooner or later, and this can be already fatal. So a6 is not bad,
but doesn't solve Black's problems.

> Or
> even the mundane 6...Bb4 7.O-O Bxc3 8.bxc3 d5 9.exd5 Qxd5 and black
doesn't
> seem to have too many problems.

7... Bxc3 is not good, because after
8.bxc3 d5 9.exd5 Qxd5 10. Qc2 Nge7 (10... Nf6? 11:Ba3 and Black
has problems to castle) 11. Rb1 0-0 12. Rd1 attacking the black queen
White has got best prerequisites for a fast kingsite attack or queen site
operations, Black can't thwart both plans. White needn't
be worried because of the isolated pawn c3. The open rook files
and the space advantage are more than a compensation.

Kind regards,
DC