| |
Main
Date: 01 Aug 2005 18:09:52
From: Jonathan Lonsdale [despammed]
Subject: Morra Gambit Line
|
I'm reading IM Tim Taylor's "How to Defeat the Smith-Morra Gambit: 6. ...
a6" in which he recommends the following line:
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6
After a further 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bf4 he recommends 8. ... e5 and only consider
9.Be3 and Black gets a comfortable game after 9...Be7 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Rfd1 b5
12.Bb3 Be6
Now there are two other tries for White after 8. ... e5:
9.Bg5 (targeting the d5 square) Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.h3 Be6 12.Qe2 0-0 and
Black looks solid.
9.Ng5!? - I found one game with this and Black collapsed quickly:
[Event "Biel MTO op"]
[Site "Biel"]
[Date "2001.07.23"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Musalov,Ruslan"]
[Black "Allemann,Anton"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bf4 e5
9.Ng5 exf4 10.Nxf7 Qe7 11.e5 dxe5 12.Re1 g6 13.Qa4 Bd7 14.Nxh8 Rc8 15.Bf7+
Kd8 16.Nd5 Nxd5
17.Bxd5 Bg7 18.Nf7+ Ke8 19.Rad1 Nd4 20.Qa3 Qxa3 21.bxa3 Nc2 22.Nd6+ Kd8
23.Nxc8 Nxe1 24.Nb6 Nc2
25.Be6 Nd4 26.Bxd7 1-0
Analysing with Fritz it does look like Black can improve, e.g.:
9.Ng5!? Be6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.Nxe6 Qc8 12.Nd5 exf4 13.Nec7+ Kd8 14.Nxa8 Qxa8
15.Nxf6 gxf6 16.Qg4 Qc8 17.Qxf4 Qe6
Now in the final position material parity has been restored: White has R+P
for two minor pieces. White's pawn structure and King safety look far
superior. Black would have to play aggressively using the g-file and minor
pieces to justify going in for this.
My question is: can Black justify this or should he avoid 8. ... e5 and
maybe look at moves like 8. ... Bg4 or 8. ... e6 instead?
--
Remove numbers from email address to reply
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2005 14:45:58
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Jonathan Lonsdale wrote:
> I'm reading IM Tim Taylor's "How to Defeat the Smith-Morra Gambit: 6. ...
> a6" in which he recommends the following line:
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6
>
Hi,
The pawn move ... a6 indeed plays a central role in the efforts
to find a good defense against the Morra Gambit.
Stronger than the above line is:
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 -/+
and Black should win easily.
In known theory White will always develop the bishop to c4
as you can see here, and Black can take advantage from this.
Anyone playing White and not knowing how to react on 4... a6
followed by 5... e6 risks to lose here.
Regards,
DC
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2005 18:03:08
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Stronger than the above line is:
>
> 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 -/+
>
> and Black should win easily.
Nonsense.
Now I can't tell you what the ultimate theoretical analysis of this
position is, but the notion that it's an "easy" win for black is absurd.
12. Nd5! keeps things interesting for quite some time.
12. Nd5 ed 13.ed+ Qe7 14.Qd2
And now it's black who can lose in a hurry if he doesn't find:
14. ... Nc5! 15. Re1 Nef4 16. Qxb4 f5 17.Ng5 is unclear - certainly not
an easy win for black.
(Not claiming this is clearly the best line, and I'm certainly curious
if you have improvements here, but this doesn't look like an 'easy' win
for black by any stretch of the imagination. And the Nd5 sacrifice
shouldn't be hard for any Morra player to find.)
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2005 09:50:23
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Ron 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 -/+
>
> 12. Nd5! keeps things interesting for quite some time.
>
> 12. Nd5 ed 13.ed+ Qe7 14.Qd2
>
> And now it's black who can lose in a hurry if he doesn't find:
>
> 14. ... Nc5! 15. Re1 Nef4 16. Qxb4 f5 17.Ng5 is unclear - certainly not
> an easy win for black.
Hi Ron,
Ok, maybe I was exaggerating a bit here declaring it an "easy" win;
for sure I looked at White's knight sac the first time I examined
the position after 11... b4 and I was not enthused.
Black can do better than in your line:
12. Nd5 exd5 13. exd5+ Be7 14. Bxd6 Kf8 15. Bxe7+ Qxe7 16. Qxe7+
Kxe7 17. d6+ Kf8 18. Ng5 Nc5 19. Bc4 g6 20. Nxf7 Rg8 -/+
This is all pretty straight forward, if White deviates, Black's advantage
will get bigger. White's passed pawn d6 has been stopped, while
Black's rook g8 will enter the game via g7. Black's surplus knight will
prove stronger than White's 2 surplus pawns.
The problem with this whole line is 7... Bb7. White must prevent
this bishop from occupying such a promising position early in the
game. And then Black even got the initiative.
This could only happen because Black gained two tempos,
by 6... b5 and 11... b4.
No wonder that the Morra is regarded as an amateur opening.
Regards,
DC
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2005 20:31:19
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"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 -/+
> >
> > 12. Nd5! keeps things interesting for quite some time.
>
> 12. Nd5 exd5 13. exd5+ Be7 14. Bxd6 Kf8 15. Bxe7+ Qxe7 16. Qxe7+
> Kxe7 17. d6+ Kf8 18. Ng5 Nc5 19. Bc4 g6 20. Nxf7 Rg8 -/+
I think you're being overcharitable toward black's difficulties here,
and will try to provide lines to that effect later. Particularly, you're
missing the fact that white will usually pick up the B pawn, giving him
a third pawn for the piece - and black usually ends up with one or two
pieces tied down to blockading the d-pawn.
I may no claims as to the "proper" end result of this position, but in
practical play white has plenty of chances to win.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2005 02:56:35
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article
<ronaldinho_m-38C163.13311804082005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com >,
Ron <[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 -/+
> > >
> > > 12. Nd5! keeps things interesting for quite some time.
> >
> > 12. Nd5 exd5 13. exd5+ Be7 14. Bxd6 Kf8 15. Bxe7+ Qxe7 16. Qxe7+
> > Kxe7 17. d6+ Kf8 18. Ng5 Nc5 19. Bc4 g6 20. Nxf7 Rg8 -/+
>
> I think you're being overcharitable toward black's difficulties here,
> and will try to provide lines to that effect later. Particularly, you're
> missing the fact that white will usually pick up the B pawn, giving him
> a third pawn for the piece - and black usually ends up with one or two
> pieces tied down to blockading the d-pawn.
So anyway, I did work on this line with a stronger player, and we ended
up exploring ways to avoid the above position, because we weren't sure
about the sacrifice on move 12.
So we looked at
8.0-0 (the idea being that white wants to avoid Qe2 until the black QN
is committed to c6). The traditional argument against 8.0-0 is 8...b4,
but we weren't convinced yet (although I may have just found the monkey
wrench in this plan).
8.0-0 b4 9.Nd5 ed 10.ed d6 11. Qd4 Nf6 12.Qxb4 Qc7 13.Be3 Nbd7 14.Rc1
Qb8 15.Rfe1 Be7 16. Bf4 looks very strong for white, quite probably
winning.
Although, as I said, I'm looking at one source of improvement for black.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2005 15:03:40
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In <ronaldinho_m-15F703.19563504082005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com >,
Ron 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 -/+
>> > > 12. Nd5! keeps things interesting for quite some time.
>> > 12. Nd5 exd5 13. exd5+ Be7 14. Bxd6 Kf8 15. Bxe7+ Qxe7 16. Qxe7+
>> > Kxe7 17. d6+ Kf8 18. Ng5 Nc5 19. Bc4 g6 20. Nxf7 Rg8 -/+
>>
> So anyway, I did work on this line with a stronger player, and we ended
> up exploring ways to avoid the above position, because we weren't sure
> about the sacrifice on move 12.
>
> So we looked at
> 8.0-0 (the idea being that white wants to avoid Qe2 until the black QN
> is committed to c6). The traditional argument against 8.0-0 is 8...b4,
> but we weren't convinced yet (although I may have just found the monkey
> wrench in this plan).
> 8.0-0 b4 9.Nd5 ed 10.ed d6 11. Qd4 Nf6 12.Qxb4 Qc7 13.Be3 Nbd7 14.Rc1
> Qb8 15.Rfe1 Be7 16. Bf4 looks very strong for white, quite probably
> winning.
Hmm, 10... d6 is not forced. Black might prefer to develop a piece,
like 10... Bd6 11. Qd4 Qf6 12. Re1+ Ne7 13. Qxf6 gxf6 14. Bh6 Rg8
and Black is a piece up, but has a doubled pawn.
Regards, Peter
--
TAS/DPIWE/CIT/Servers hbt/lnd/l8 6233 3061 http://www.pjb.com.au
And how sweet a story it is, when you hear Charley Parker tell it
- Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2005 08:26:28
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Peter Billam <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hmm, 10... d6 is not forced. Black might prefer to develop a piece,
> like 10... Bd6 11. Qd4 Qf6 12. Re1+ Ne7 13. Qxf6 gxf6 14. Bh6 Rg8
> and Black is a piece up, but has a doubled pawn.
Indeed. Black has to prevent white from playing e6, and Bd6 looks
stronger. I'm not convinced Qd4 is the right way to go here, however,
so I'm focusing the search for improvements on that position right now.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2005 17:34:51
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Hi Ron, hi Peter,
Really, I must say, 8. O-O is a cool move! :-)
Actually White sets up a trap now, because
8... b4 9. Nd5 seems to be rather bad for Black.
This knight sac is correct as far as I can see,
for example after 10... Bd6 White will win by
11. Re1! (I examined quite some alternatives
to verify my opinion)
Look at this nice sample:
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3
b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. O-O b4 9. Nd5 exd5 10. exd5 Bd6
11. Re1+ Ne7 12. Ng5 O-O 13. Qh5 h6 14. Ne4 Qc7
15. Bxh6
{the typical blow in such positions}
15...Bxh2+ {this counter is too late}
(15... gxh6 16. Qxh6 f6 17. Nxd6 Qxd6 18. Rxe7 Qxe7 19. d6+
{winning }
)
16. Kh1 Qe5 17. Bg5 Nxd5 18. Qxh2 Qxh2+ 19. Kxh2 Nb6
{Black can't avert the disaster.}
20. Be7 Rc8 21. Nd6 Rc7
{Black tries to save the quality.. but:}
22. Bxf7+
{results in a fast mate}
22...Kh7 23. Kg3 g6 24. Bf6 Bf3 25. Bg8+ Kxg8 26. Re8+
Kh7 27. Rh8# 1-0
But Ron, don't start cheering, Black is not forced
to play 8... b4, there are other options.
Black has still good chances here, I guess...
Maybe I'll post some lines later.
Regards,
DC
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2005 12:15:43
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In <[email protected] >, Dc Gentle wrote:
> Hi Ron, hi Peter,
> Really, I must say, 8. O-O is a cool move! :-)
My relatively incomplete database reveals:
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5 7. Bb3 Bb7
ECO : B21
Next Moves :
Be3 ( 0/0/1 ) 0 %
Bf4 ( 0/0/1 ) 0 %
Qd3 ( 0/0/1 ) 0 %
Bc2 ( 0/1/0 ) 50 %
Nd5 ( 0/1/0 ) 50 %
a3 ( 2/2/5 ) 33.3333 %
O-O ( 6/2/9 ) 41.1765 %
Qe2 ( 29/23/41 ) 43.5484 %
So 8. Qe2 is most popular, but 8. O-O is the next-most-played.
Black has scored well in practice. But:
> Actually White sets up a trap now, because 8... b4 9. Nd5 seems
> to be rather bad for Black. This knight sac is correct as far as
> I can see, for example after 10... Bd6 White will win by 11. Re1!
OK, I think I'm convinced. 11. Re1 has occurred before:
(so has 11. Bg5, which lost; but I have no record of 11. Qd4)
> (I examined quite some alternatives to verify my opinion)
> Look at this nice sample:
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3
> b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. O-O b4 9. Nd5 exd5 10. exd5 Bd6
> 11. Re1+ Ne7 12. Ng5 O-O
Black has also lost a couple of times with 12... f6
> 13. Qh5 h6 14. Ne4 Qc7 15. Bxh6 {the typical blow in such positions}
In 1998 Antonio Jaumandreu drew against Tomasz Grabowski with
15. Nf6+ gxf6 16. Rxe7 Bxe7 17. Bxh6 f5 18. Bxf8 d6 19. Re1 Bxf8
20. Qg5+ Kh8 21. Qf6+ Kg8 22. Qg5+ 1/2-1/2
> 15...Bxh2+ {this counter is too late}
> (15... gxh6 16. Qxh6 f6 17. Nxd6 Qxd6 18. Rxe7 Qxe7 19. d6+ {winning } )
> 16. Kh1
This improves on a 2000 computer game in Ahrensburg:
16. Qxh2 Qxh2+ 17. Kxh2 gxh6 18. Nc5 Bxd5 19. Rxe7 Bxb3 20. Nxb3 a5
21. Rae1 Kg7 22. R7e5 Rc8 23. R1e2 a4 24. Nd4 a3 25. Rd5 axb2 26. Rxb2
Rc4 27. Nf5+ Kg6 28. Nd6 Rg4 29. f3 Rg5 30. Rxg5+ hxg5 31. Rxb4 Nc6
32. Rb2 f5 33. Nc4 d5 34. Rb6 dxc4 35. Rxc6+ Kh5 36. Rxc4 Rxa2 37. Rc6
g4 38. Kg3 Kg5 39. f4+ Kh5 40. Rf6 Ra3+ 41. Kh2 Ra5 42. g3 Rc5 1/2-1/2
> 16... Qe5 17. Bg5 Nxd5 18. Qxh2 Qxh2+ 19. Kxh2 Nb6
> {Black can't avert the disaster.}
> 20. Be7 Rc8 21. Nd6 Rc7 {Black tries to save the quality.. but:}
> 22. Bxf7+ {results in a fast mate}
> 22...Kh7 23. Kg3 g6 24. Bf6 Bf3 25. Bg8+ Kxg8 26. Re8+ Kh7 27. Rh8# 1-0
>
> But Ron, don't start cheering, Black is not forced
> to play 8... b4, there are other options.
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 a6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nf3 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7 8.O-O
Next Moves :
Bc5 ( 1/0/0 ) 100 %
Bb4 ( 1/0/1 ) 50 %
Ne7 ( 0/0/2 ) 0 %
d6 ( 2/1/2 ) 50 %
b4 ( 2/1/4 ) 35.7143 %
So 8... b4 has been the most popular, and has been successful for Black.
Perhaps 8... Ne7 might be worth a look.
Regards, Peter
--
TAS/DPIWE/CIT/Servers hbt/lnd/l8 6233 3061 http://www.pjb.com.au
And how sweet a story it is, when you hear Charley Parker tell it
- Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2005 09:31:17
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Thanks, Peter, for your Database statistics and lines.
The fact that relatively many people won by 8... b4
after 8. O-O only shows that statistics don't tell
the truth always. No wonder, the winning line for White
is not that easy to find, especially over the board where
time is limited.
I looked at 8... Ne7 and it seems not so convincing.
I still believe that 8... d6 is better because Black is
now able to choose between ... Nc6 and .. Nd7.
In some variants ... Nd7 and ... Ne7 are appropriate,
delaying castling and leaving the dark bishop on its
start position f8. Furthermore it might happen that White
will get a strong attack, for example:
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 b5 7. Bb3
Bb7 8. O-O Ne7 9. Be3 Ng6 10. Nd2 Nc6 11. f4 Be7 12. Qh5 O-O
13. f5 Nge5 14. Rad1 Qc7 15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Ng5 h6 17. fxe6 fxe6
18. Nxe6 dxe6 19. Bxe6+ Kh8 20. Nd5 Qd6 21. Nf4 Qb4 22. Ng6+ Kh7
23. a3 Qxb2 24. Nxf8+ Rxf8 25. Bf5+ Kg8 26. Bxh6 Rf7 27. Be6 Nd4
28. Bxf7+ Nxf7 29. Rf2 Qc3 30. Rxf6 Ne2+ 31. Qxe2 Qxf6 32. Bc1 +-
and White has a won position. Now where did Black go wrong?
13. f5 already looks like trouble for Black.
After 8... d6 9. Be3 Nd7 the move 10. Nd2 can be answered by
10... Ngf6 even and Black looks fine.
Regards,
DC
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2005 18:16:40
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote:
> But Ron, don't start cheering, Black is not forced
> to play 8... b4, there are other options.
> Black has still good chances here, I guess...
>
> Maybe I'll post some lines later.
Thanks for the analysis, DC.
I'm curious to see what else you come up with for black.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2005 18:21:10
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Ron wrote:
>
> I'm curious to see what else you come up with for black.
>
Ok, Ron, here there are two sample lines.
White's plans are different in these variants.
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3
b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. O-O d6
{Black has to be careful when advancing the d- or e-pawn.}
9. e5 d5
{It's good for Black fo keep the game closed.}
10. Nd4
{in order to advance the f-pawn}
10...Nd7 11. f4 Bc5
{pinning the knight}
12. Be3 Ne7 13. Qh5
{nice try}
13...Qb6 14. Rad1 g6 15. Qh6 Nf5 16. Nxf5 gxf5
{the kingside looks open now, but...}
17. Bxc5 Nxc5 18. Kh1 Nxb3 19. axb3 O-O-O
{... suddenly Black's plan becomes clear, White's
kingside looks vulnerable now. Black is better.}
In the following variant the game is open:
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3
b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. O-O d6 9. Bf4
{White's plan is to capture the weak d-pawn.}
9...Nc6 10. Qe2 Nge7 11. Bg3
{to avoid a kick by the knight advancing to g6}
11...Ng6
{nevertheless}
12. Rfd1 Rc8 13. Rd2 Na5 14. Qd1 Qf6
{where is the defense of pawn d6?}
15. Bxd6 Bxd6 16. Rxd6 O-O 17. Qd2 Nf4
{threatening 18...b4 19.Ne2 Nh3+ 20.Kf1 Bxe4}
18. Qe3 b4 19. Na4 Nc4 20. Bxc4 Rxc4 21. Nc5 Qxb2
{Black got his pawn back.}
22. Re1 Rc3 23. Qxf4 Rxc5
{Black is better.}
Regards,
DC
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2005 04:18:59
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"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. O-O d6
> {Black has to be careful when advancing the d- or e-pawn.}
> 9. e5 d5
> {It's good for Black fo keep the game closed.}
Honestly this early thrust looks premature to me - because of d5.
Nevertheless, this isn't anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be.
> 10. Nd4
> {in order to advance the f-pawn}
> 10...Nd7 11. f4 Bc5
11. Bf4 seems substantially stronger, as it doesn't give black the easy
pinned target on d4.
> {pinning the knight}
> 12. Be3 Ne7 13. Qh5
> {nice try}
I can't say that I understand what white hopes to accomplish with this
move. The battle clearly revolved around e3 and d4 here, so white should
be overprotecting those squares (Rf3, Qd2, Rad1, etc) rather than making
a premature foray on the kingside. It he wants to discourage black from
going kingside, Bc2 is an option. If he wants to probe around the
queenside, a4 isn't terrible, either (b4 Ne2). But Qh5 isn't part of any
strategy other than the patzer's "I'm going to charge at his kingside!"
(made even dumber by the fact that the black king isn't even over there
yet).
After Qd2, Rad1, Rf3 and maybe Bc2 white has a lot of power ready to
move over to the kingside if black decides to go there. The open c-file
makes going queenside iffy, and if he tarries in the center, kingside
expansion eventually breaking through with f5 makes sense.
> 13...Qb6 14. Rad1 g6 15. Qh6 Nf5 16. Nxf5 gxf5
> {the kingside looks open now, but...}
> 17. Bxc5 Nxc5 18. Kh1 Nxb3 19. axb3 O-O-O
> {... suddenly Black's plan becomes clear, White's
> kingside looks vulnerable now. Black is better.}
> 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3
> b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. O-O d6 9. Bf4
> {White's plan is to capture the weak d-pawn.}
> 9...Nc6 10. Qe2 Nge7 11. Bg3
> {to avoid a kick by the knight advancing to g6}
> 11...Ng6
> {nevertheless}
Well, although it amounts to nothing more than a transposition, your
notes make me wonder exactly what you're up to, here, since most players
wouldn't care about the bishop being kicked, and would play simply 11.
Rfd1.
> 12. Rfd1 Rc8 13. Rd2 Na5 14. Qd1 Qf6
> {where is the defense of pawn d6?}
> 15. Bxd6 Bxd6 16. Rxd6 O-O 17. Qd2 Nf4
> {threatening 18...b4 19.Ne2 Nh3+ 20.Kf1 Bxe4}
> 18. Qe3 b4 19. Na4 Nc4 20. Bxc4 Rxc4 21. Nc5 Qxb2
> {Black got his pawn back.}
I don't want to be harsh, but, seriously, come on. How many wasteful
queen moves are you going to have white make here? The Qd1-e2-d1-d2-e3
manuver is downright silly.
> 22. Re1 Rc3 23. Qxf4 Rxc5
> {Black is better.}
Improvements in this game: 13. h4, 14. Rad1 17.Qd4 (Qxd4 Rxd4 adding
protection to e4 and stopping b4.) 18.Ne1 (defending against any Qg5
tricks) or 18. Re1, 23.Rd2 (keeps things more complex, although black is
better at htis point anyway).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2005 22:33:12
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Ron, I know you don't like my findings; but
if you suggest alternative moves it's not enough
to outline the plan of one side, only real variants
will show whether a plan will be successful.
It is obvious that after
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3
b5 7. Bb3 Bb7
White has not only already lost a pawn but also
a tempo to allow bishop b7 to occupy the
best diagonal possible. Furthermore the bishop b3
bites on granite at the pawn structure e6-f7 and so
its efficency is greatly reduced. All White got
is space advantage on the kingside and the little
better development. It's already doubtful
whether White has kept the initiative here.
Black has enough time to wait and see in
which way the white attack will develop and
react accordingly. Don't forget that Black is a
pawn up, so trading pieces to reach a pawn
endgame might already be sufficient for a black
win.
Variants where Black plays pawn e6 before pawn
d6 cause the biggest problems for Black and these
lines of current Morra theory are responsible for the
bad reputation of this gambit. I wouldn't say the
gambit isn't playable at all, but against a strong
opponent you have to come up with some decisive
novelty.
regards,
DC
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2005 03:13:55
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Dc Gentle" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ron, I know you don't like my findings; but
> if you suggest alternative moves it's not enough
> to outline the plan of one side, only real variants
> will show whether a plan will be successful.
Fair enough. But honestly, I don't think your examples were any more
meaningful - white's responses in those games were tepid (at best) and
nonsensical) at worst. Don't call them "real variants" because they're
not - they represent something akin to, "gee, this is what I hope white
will play" moves from black's POV.
I haven't had a lot of time to go over those lines in a lot more detail.
My first thought is that while I agree that the queenside fianchetto
looks like one of black's most dangerous plans, I haven't seen anything
which makes me think he's got more than dynamic equality.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2005 09:55:49
From:
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Peter Billam wrote:
> I'd want to look at 8... Bg4 or 8... e6 : How do they work out ?
Offhand, I'd say 8...Bg4 is Black's best bet against 8.Bf4. If 9.Qb3
e6 10.Qxb7? loses a piece, viz. 10...Na5 11.Qb4 e5! (not 11...Rb8?
12.Qa4+) 12.Bd5 (if 12.Bg5 Rb8 or 12...d5 wins) 12...Rb8 13.Qa4+ Bd7
14.Qd1 exf4. Therefore Black would safely be able to achieve one of the
line's goals, the development of the QB beyond his second rank.
The 6...a6 line is also given as best against the Smith-Morra in
"Beating the Anti-Sicilians" by Joe Gallagher (Henry Holt, 1994).
Gallagher does not mention 8.Bf4, only 8.Qe2, 8.h3, and 8.Bg5.
The earliest game I could find with the 6...a6 line is
Tartakower-Prins, Southsea 1950 (1-0, 44). Next is Fischer-Korchnoi,
Buenos Aires 1960 (=BD-=BD, 29). Ken Smith himself lost twice against it
at San Antonio 1972, vs. Evans (0-1, 40) and Mecking (0-1, 19). Here is
the latter game:
1=2E e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 a6 7. O-O
Nf6 8. a3 e6 9. Qe2 h6 10. Rd1 e5 11. Nd5 Be7 12. Be3 Nxd5 13. exd5 Nb8
14. Nxe5 dxe5 15. f4 exf4 16. d6 fxe3 17. Qxe3 Nc6 18. Bd5 O-O 19. Bxc6
Bg5 [0:1]
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2005 21:52:07
From: Will Kemp
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
"Jonathan Lonsdale [despammed]" <[email protected] > wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> I'm reading IM Tim Taylor's "How to Defeat the Smith-Morra Gambit: 6. ...
> a6" in which he recommends the following line:
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6
>
Not sure if this move order has a proper name, but I've always called it the
"Evans Defense" after Evans' adoption of it against Ken Smith in San Antonio
in 1972 or thereabouts. I think it can also transpose to the Chicago
Defense, where Black tries to block the d-file with ...Ra7-d7.
It is a flexible move. ...a6 is a useful move in almost all lines of the
Smith-Morra, and playing it now instead of 6...e6 preserves the option of
...Bg4. It is also trappy, in the sense that if White is careless and plays
his "normal" Smith-Morra moves he can get into trouble.
> After a further 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bf4 he recommends 8. ... e5 and only consider
> 9.Be3 and Black gets a comfortable game after 9...Be7 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Rfd1
> b5 12.Bb3 Be6
I'm not sure about 8.Bf4. I think the main line used to be 8.Bg5. I have
not seen Taylor's book (article?). I'll have to pick it up if I get the
chance.
The key to this variation as I recall is that White must avoid the rote
8.Qe2, which allows Black to free his game with 8...Bg4.
After 8.Bg5, if Black tries 8...Bg4 then 9.Qb3. Therefore, Black really has
nothing better than 8...e6 which gets back into normal Smith-Morra stuff.
Also, 8.Bg5 saves a tempo on your "alternative" line after 8...e5. Of
course, the idea of exchanging the ...Nf6 is common in Sicilian Defenses
where Black has weakened d5.
I think 6...a6 presents White with a few little obstacles to overcome, but
in the end I don't think Black has anything better than to eventually
tranpose to the classical main line with ...Be7 and ...Qc7 or ...e5. If
Black can get to this point and then castle without giving up anything, he's
in pretty good shape, I think. At least, if I'm playing this as White, I
start to get a little nervous after 9...e5 or 9...Qc7.
Sorry this doesn't answer your question directly, but thank you for starting
a discussion about the Smith-Morra -- fun to play from either side!
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2005 05:50:03
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
"Will Kemp" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jonathan Lonsdale [despammed]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > I'm reading IM Tim Taylor's "How to Defeat the Smith-Morra Gambit: 6.
...
> > a6" in which he recommends the following line:
> >
> > 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6
> >
>
> Not sure if this move order has a proper name, but I've always called it
the
> "Evans Defense" after Evans' adoption of it against Ken Smith in San
Antonio
> in 1972 or thereabouts. I think it can also transpose to the Chicago
> Defense, where Black tries to block the d-file with ...Ra7-d7.
>
> It is a flexible move. ...a6 is a useful move in almost all lines of the
> Smith-Morra, and playing it now instead of 6...e6 preserves the option of
> ...Bg4. It is also trappy, in the sense that if White is careless and
plays
> his "normal" Smith-Morra moves he can get into trouble.
>
>
> > After a further 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bf4 he recommends 8. ... e5 and only
consider
> > 9.Be3 and Black gets a comfortable game after 9...Be7 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Rfd1
> > b5 12.Bb3 Be6
>
> I'm not sure about 8.Bf4. I think the main line used to be 8.Bg5. I have
> not seen Taylor's book (article?). I'll have to pick it up if I get the
> chance.
>
> The key to this variation as I recall is that White must avoid the rote
> 8.Qe2, which allows Black to free his game with 8...Bg4.
>
> After 8.Bg5, if Black tries 8...Bg4 then 9.Qb3. Therefore, Black really
has
> nothing better than 8...e6 which gets back into normal Smith-Morra stuff.
>
> Also, 8.Bg5 saves a tempo on your "alternative" line after 8...e5. Of
> course, the idea of exchanging the ...Nf6 is common in Sicilian Defenses
> where Black has weakened d5.
>
> I think 6...a6 presents White with a few little obstacles to overcome, but
> in the end I don't think Black has anything better than to eventually
> tranpose to the classical main line with ...Be7 and ...Qc7 or ...e5. If
> Black can get to this point and then castle without giving up anything,
he's
> in pretty good shape, I think. At least, if I'm playing this as White, I
> start to get a little nervous after 9...e5 or 9...Qc7.
>
> Sorry this doesn't answer your question directly, but thank you for
starting
> a discussion about the Smith-Morra -- fun to play from either side!
After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 .... it's Black who decides to play
Smith-Morra(3...dc) or Alapin (3...Nf6)
From this point of view, Smith-Morra is not very popular in tournament play.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2005 07:32:16
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <fWYHe.101699$%K2.94883@pd7tw1no >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 .... it's Black who decides to play
> Smith-Morra(3...dc) or Alapin (3...Nf6)
> From this point of view, Smith-Morra is not very popular in tournament play.
Prepping yourself to play against the Alapin is a lot less work than
prepping yourself to play the open sicilian.
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2005 16:27:02
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <fWYHe.101699$%K2.94883@pd7tw1no >, Nick wrote:
>
> After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 .... it's Black who decides to play
> Smith-Morra(3...dc) or Alapin (3...Nf6) From this point
> of view, Smith-Morra is not very popular in tournament play.
Yes, but that commits Black to the ..Nf6 line against the Alapin,
so if you're White you won't have to prepare for the popular ..d5 or
..e6 defences. And, if Black is relying on ..Nf6, then he'll have
big problems with the Morra in its 2.Nf3, 3.d4, 4.c3 move order.
The Alapin mainlines often involve a prolonged refusal by Black
to capture on c3, so there's no clear boundary between the Alapin
and the Morra-refused ...
Regards, Peter
--
TAS/DPIWE/CIT/Servers hbt/lnd/l8 6233 3061 http://www.pjb.com.au
And how sweet a story it is, when you hear Charley Parker tell it
- Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2005 14:05:11
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
"Peter Billam" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <fWYHe.101699$%K2.94883@pd7tw1no>, Nick wrote:
> >
> > After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 .... it's Black who decides to play
> > Smith-Morra(3...dc) or Alapin (3...Nf6) From this point
> > of view, Smith-Morra is not very popular in tournament play.
>
> Yes, but that commits Black to the ..Nf6 line against the Alapin,
If you play Alapin as white, your main preparation will be against 3...Nf6,
which is considered to be the best reply by Black.
Other Black's responses (3...d5 etc.) are much easier to prepare than the
entire Smith-Morra.
What's the point of preparing for both Alapin and Smith-Morra, unless you
have time... but then, shouldn't you consider open Sicilian?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2005 19:08:06
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Will Kemp" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I'm reading IM Tim Taylor's "How to Defeat the Smith-Morra Gambit: 6. ...
> > a6" in which he recommends the following line:
> >
> > 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6
> >
> > After a further 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bf4 he recommends 8. ... e5 and only consider
> > 9.Be3 and Black gets a comfortable game after 9...Be7 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Rfd1
> > b5 12.Bb3 Be6
>
> I'm not sure about 8.Bf4. I think the main line used to be 8.Bg5. I have
> not seen Taylor's book (article?). I'll have to pick it up if I get the
> chance.
>
> The key to this variation as I recall is that White must avoid the rote
> 8.Qe2, which allows Black to free his game with 8...Bg4.
>
> After 8.Bg5, if Black tries 8...Bg4 then 9.Qb3. Therefore, Black really has
> nothing better than 8...e6 which gets back into normal Smith-Morra stuff.
Burgess's "Winning With the Smith Morra" explores 8.b4!? and 8.Bg5. Not
that my opinion counts for much, but Bf4 looks like it provokes black
into a move he wants to make anyway. Bf4 makes more sense with the
queen on c7 (giving white more Nd5 tricks.)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2005 17:11:49
From: Jonathan Lonsdale [despammed]
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
"Will Kemp" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan Lonsdale [despammed]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> I'm reading IM Tim Taylor's "How to Defeat the Smith-Morra Gambit: 6. ...
>> a6" in which he recommends the following line:
>>
>> 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6
>
> Not sure if this move order has a proper name, but I've always called it
> the "Evans Defense" after Evans' adoption of it against Ken Smith in San
> Antonio in 1972 or thereabouts. I think it can also transpose to the
> Chicago Defense, where Black tries to block the d-file with ...Ra7-d7.
You have a good memory! In the book Smith-Evans, San Antonio 1972 is given
as a model of Black play in this line. And he does indeed recommend places
where it is favourable to transpose into the Chicago Defence.
<snip >
> I'm not sure about 8.Bf4. I think the main line used to be 8.Bg5. I have
> not seen Taylor's book (article?). I'll have to pick it up if I get the
> chance.
Yes - it's a (small) book. ISBN 0-945470-33-9 published under the label
'Chess Enterprises'. I'm not sure if its self published by the author.
Essentially he considers White's options after:
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6 7.0-0 Nf6
Analysis of 8. Bg5, 8. Qe2, 8. Bf4, 8. a3, 8. h3 are given together with 7.
Bg5 Nf6 8. Bxf6 gxf6 are covered in 12 games over 112 pages (single column
format).
It could be a bit dated (1993) but I was happy to acquire some additional
analysis on this line. Up to now I've only had a few pages in Joe
Gallagher's "Beating the Anti-Sicilians". I'm not sure what books written
from White's point of view have to say here but I doubt they will claim at
least an edge for Black in all variations :)
--
Remove numbers from email address to reply
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2005 10:31:14
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In <[email protected] >, Jonathan Lonsdale wrote:
> I'm reading IM Tim Taylor's "How to Defeat the Smith-Morra Gambit:
> 6. ... a6" in which he recommends the following line:
> 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 a6
>
> After a further 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bf4 he recommends 8. ... e5 and
> only considers 9.Be3 and Black gets a comfortable game after
> 9...Be7 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Rfd1 b5 12.Bb3 Be6
>
> Now there are two other tries for White after 8. ... e5: 9.Bg5
> (X d5) Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.h3 Be6 12.Qe2 0-0 and Black looks solid.
>
> 9.Ng5!?
Great psycological blow!
> - I found one game with this and Black collapsed quickly:
> [Event "Biel MTO op"]
> [Site "Biel"]
> [Date "2001.07.23"]
> [Round "5"]
> [White "Musalov,Ruslan"]
> [Black "Allemann,Anton"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [Eco "B21"]
> 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bf4
> e5 9.Ng5 exf4 10.Nxf7 Qe7 11.e5 dxe5 12.Re1 g6 13.Qa4 Bd7 14.Nxh8 Rc8
> 15.Bf7+ Kd8 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Bg7 18.Nf7+ Ke8 19.Rad1 Nd4 20.Qa3 Qxa3
> 21.bxa3 Nc2 22.Nd6+ Kd8 23.Nxc8 Nxe1 24.Nb6 Nc2 25.Be6 Nd4 26.Bxd7 1-0
>
> Analysing with Fritz it does look like Black can improve, e.g.:
> 9.Ng5!? Be6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.Nxe6 Qc8 12.Nd5 exf4 13.Nec7+ Kd8
> 14.Nxa8 Qxa8 15.Nxf6 gxf6 16.Qg4 Qc8 17.Qxf4 Qe6
11. Be3 Qe7 (or Qd7) is also worth a look.
> Now in the final position ... White has R+P for two minor pieces.
> White's pawn structure and King safety look far superior. Black
> would have to play aggressively using the g-file and minor pieces
Difficult. After 18. Rfd1 Rg8 19. f3 Black can try
19... Rg6 idea Bh6 and Qh3, or
19... Rg5 to cover d5
White has no open files for his rooks yet. A big problem for Black is
the Bf8, which can easily become passive because of the weak d6 and f6.
> My question is: can Black justify this or should he avoid 8... e5
> and maybe look at moves like 8. ... Bg4 or 8. ... e6 instead?
I'd want to look at 8... Bg4 or 8... e6 : How do they work out ?
If Black isn't playing Qc7, what's the point of a6, according to
Tim Taylor ?
Regards, Peter
--
TAS/DPIWE/CIT/Servers hbt/lnd/l8 6233 3061 http://www.pjb.com.au
And how sweet a story it is, when you hear Charley Parker tell it
- Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2005 11:32:02
From:
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Well, most of the time two pieces are better than a rook and pawn,
every beginner knows this, in fact, more often than not, two pieces
will end up better than a rook and 2 pawns if there is a lot of
material still on the board. I used to play the morra, it is actually
quite an illogical gambit since it cannot be more than equal since
declining it with 3. nf6 heads to the c3 sicilian which is equal and
you have to learn all of that theory.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Aug 2005 20:54:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
> Well, most of the time two pieces are better than a rook and pawn,
A strong player will find the exceptions to that rule and crush you with
them.
Then again, he'll do that with any theory.
Actually, the best way to win with two pieces against the rook is to get
your opponent's OTHER rook off the board.
> every beginner knows this,
Don't trust beginners.
>in fact, more often than not, two pieces
> will end up better than a rook and 2 pawns
Rarely, especially if the pawns are strong (usually the reason one gives up
two pieces for the rook).
>if there is a lot of
> material still on the board. I used to play the morra, it is actually
> quite an illogical gambit since it cannot be more than equal since
> declining it with 3. nf6 heads to the c3 sicilian which is equal and
> you have to learn all of that theory.
4. e5 isn't nasty?
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2005 13:30:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>> I used to play the morra, it is actually quite an illogical gambit
>> since it cannot be more than equal since declining it with 3. nf6 heads
>> to the c3 sicilian which is equal and you have to learn all of that
>> theory.
>
> 4. e5 isn't nasty?
Nope. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poisonous Chainsaw (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a lethal weapon but it'll kill you
in seconds!
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2005 06:12:48
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
>> Somebody wrote:
>>> I used to play the morra, it is actually quite an illogical gambit
>>> since it cannot be more than equal since declining it with 3. nf6 heads
>>> to the c3 sicilian which is equal and you have to learn all of that
>>> theory.
>>
>> 4. e5 isn't nasty?
>
> Nope. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5.
After 5. cxd4, White is doing fine, with a better pawn center and more
space.
Computer says Black is -0.12 for what that's worth.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2005 09:59:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> Somebody wrote:
>>>> I used to play the morra, it is actually quite an illogical gambit
>>>> since it cannot be more than equal since declining it with 3. nf6 heads
>>>> to the c3 sicilian which is equal and you have to learn all of that
>>>> theory.
>>>
>>> 4. e5 isn't nasty?
>>
>> Nope. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5.
>
> After 5. cxd4, White is doing fine, with a better pawn center and more
> space.
>
> Computer says Black is -0.12 for what that's worth.
Woot. Veritable equality.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Chocolate Bulb (TM): it's like a light
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ bulb that's made of chocolate!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2005 19:12:58
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <IIE*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> >
> > Computer says Black is -0.12 for what that's worth.
>
> Woot. Veritable equality.
Well, nobody plays the Smith-Morra (or most other old-fashioned gambits)
striving for the most favorable possible theoretical position. In most
cases, you're looking for a dynamic position where you can play for the
win, where you're likely to be more comfortable than your opponent.
This is why some of the lines DC posted originally bothered me - it
really looked (at first) like black was squashing out all of white's
play.
But the c3 sicilian is a perfectly respectable choice by white -
arguably more respectable than the smith-morra itself (it certainly
shows up more in GM play than the smith-morra).
I don't know how high up you can play the Smith-Morra and get away with
it - but I do have a friend who's an expert (who helped me with some of
the lines I talked about earlier) who uses it with a great deal of
success.
This puts the Morra in the same category as a lot of other gambits, like
the scotch, the Italian 4.d4, the Evans, etc - where the player of the
white pieces is going to get a lot of easy points against unprepared
opponents, and strong fighting positions even against prepared ones,
with the opportunity to play for the win even against strong opponents
who may underestimate the dangers involved (because "that move can't be
any good.")
And, honestly, I think that most people weaker than my expert friend
will have better success with the Morra than with an open sicilian. Not
because the Morra is theoretically better - I would never claim such a
thing - but because when you play an open sicilian you're playing into
your opponent's preparation in a line when preparation really matters.
I'd rather spend my chess time working on my tactics and endings.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2005 09:25:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
> And, honestly, I think that most people weaker than my expert friend
> will have better success with the Morra than with an open sicilian. Not
> because the Morra is theoretically better - I would never claim such a
> thing - but because when you play an open sicilian you're playing into
> your opponent's preparation in a line when preparation really matters.
That is equally true for both colors.
The Smith-Morra is likely equality for White and little more, or little
less.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2005 03:19:49
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <IIE*[email protected]>,
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Computer says Black is -0.12 for what that's worth.
> >
> > Woot. Veritable equality.
>
> Well, nobody plays the Smith-Morra (or most other old-fashioned gambits)
> striving for the most favorable possible theoretical position. In most
> cases, you're looking for a dynamic position where you can play for the
> win, where you're likely to be more comfortable than your opponent.
>
> This is why some of the lines DC posted originally bothered me - it
> really looked (at first) like black was squashing out all of white's
> play.
>
> But the c3 sicilian is a perfectly respectable choice by white -
> arguably more respectable than the smith-morra itself (it certainly
> shows up more in GM play than the smith-morra).
>
> I don't know how high up you can play the Smith-Morra and get away with
> it - but I do have a friend who's an expert (who helped me with some of
> the lines I talked about earlier) who uses it with a great deal of
> success.
>
> This puts the Morra in the same category as a lot of other gambits, like
> the scotch, the Italian 4.d4, the Evans, etc - where the player of the
> white pieces is going to get a lot of easy points against unprepared
> opponents, and strong fighting positions even against prepared ones,
> with the opportunity to play for the win even against strong opponents
> who may underestimate the dangers involved (because "that move can't be
> any good.")
>
> And, honestly, I think that most people weaker than my expert friend
> will have better success with the Morra than with an open sicilian. Not
> because the Morra is theoretically better - I would never claim such a
> thing - but because when you play an open sicilian you're playing into
> your opponent's preparation in a line when preparation really matters.
>
> I'd rather spend my chess time working on my tactics and endings.
>
> -Ron
Any opening is good if you know and love it, if you play it against the
right opponent and with the right time control.
Smith - Morra might be good in a rapid tournament, against an attacking
player.
Is it a sound opening? - I do not think so!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2005 08:01:58
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
> Any opening is good if you know and love it, if you play it against the
> right opponent and with the right time control.
>
> Smith - Morra might be good in a rapid tournament, against an attacking
> player.
>
> Is it a sound opening? - I do not think so!
>
I don't know wether it is sound or not, but I found it quite interesting
that GM Rogozenko writes in his Anti-Sicilian book (for Black) that he
couldn't find any clear way to equalize for Black and thus he recommends to
transform into the c3 Alapin by playing 2. Nf6.
Stefan
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2005 15:10:54
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
"Stefan Renzewitz" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Any opening is good if you know and love it, if you play it against the
> > right opponent and with the right time control.
> >
> > Smith - Morra might be good in a rapid tournament, against an attacking
> > player.
> >
> > Is it a sound opening? - I do not think so!
> >
>
> I don't know wether it is sound or not, but I found it quite interesting
> that GM Rogozenko writes in his Anti-Sicilian book (for Black) that he
> couldn't find any clear way to equalize for Black and thus he recommends
to
> transform into the c3 Alapin by playing 2. Nf6.
>
> Stefan
>
>
Is that why Rogozenko plays Smith-Morra with white?
Show me some of his games, if any!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2005 18:58:59
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
>>
>> I don't know wether it is sound or not, but I found it quite interesting
>> that GM Rogozenko writes in his Anti-Sicilian book (for Black) that he
>> couldn't find any clear way to equalize for Black and thus he recommends
> to
>> transform into the c3 Alapin by playing 2. Nf6.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>
> Is that why Rogozenko plays Smith-Morra with white?
If he is conviced that he knows a way for Black to find equalization with 2.
Nf6 I'm not surprised he is not playing the Smith-Morra as his opponent
could transform to the Alapin too. However, in this thread it was said that
Smith-Morra and not the Alapin is not sound / leading to equality for Black.
Thus there is no argument for or against this thesis no matter whether
Rogozenko is playing the Smith-Morra or not.
> Show me some of his games, if any!
>
Well, if we look at it from a mathematical point of view it is usually very
tough to make a positive analytical proof (e.g. showing that White has
always an advantage no matter what Black plays). It is more typical to find
a refutation for a theorem, e.g. a line which leads to equality for Black no
matter what White will reply. So the question is if this line (and
sub-variations) exist?
Stefan
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2005 04:03:21
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
In article <pXcMe.223464$5V4.188738@pd7tw3no >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Smith - Morra might be good in a rapid tournament, against an attacking
> player.
>
> Is it a sound opening? - I do not think so!
Well, I've got to argue with you here - define sound.
Seems to me that there are two possible definitions of sound, when
talking about an opening choice of white's.
1) Black can equalize with best play
and
2) Black is better.
I've yet to see a convincing line which refutes the Smith-Morra
according to that second definition. If that's what you mean by "not
sound," then I'd love to see the lines you have in mind.
If you mean the first definition, I concede the point, but then most
openings chosen by most club players are not sound.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2005 17:21:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit Line
|
>>>>> I used to play the morra, it is actually quite an illogical gambit
>>>>> since it cannot be more than equal since declining it with 3. nf6
>>>>> heads
>>>>> to the c3 sicilian which is equal and you have to learn all of that
>>>>> theory.
>>>>
>>>> 4. e5 isn't nasty?
>>>
>>> Nope. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5.
>>
>> After 5. cxd4, White is doing fine, with a better pawn center and more
>> space.
>>
>> Computer says Black is -0.12 for what that's worth.
>
> Woot. Veritable equality.
A very difficult equality for Black to maintain.
The Morra almost has to be accepted to work for Black.
|
|
