From: Rod Malpert <ram4@cornell.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Smith-Morra Analysis (long)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:27:05 GMT
Organization: Cornell University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.253.242.22
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
X-XXDate: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:33:06 GMT

There seems to be a lot of discussion about the Smith-
Morra Gambit in this news group.  The puropse of this
posting is to address some of the variations people
have been asking about and to suggest that because
of recent improvements, the gambit should receive the 
serious attention of researchers.  I hope to identify a few of the 
crucial positions and spark analysis of them (hopefully
some of the analysis will be on the Net).

The Smith-Morra Gambit's reputation is the white 
equivalent of the Latvian Gambit's.  It is considered to
be a dubious gambit,  unplayable at the grandmaster level,
but fun and practical for amateurs.  Before examining 
concrete variations, I want to make some abstract comments
about this reputation.

Philosophers tell us that knowledge is justified true belief.
Most strong players believe that the gambit is incorrect. 
Their belief may be true,  but it certainly does not seem 
justified yet.  I played the gambit against three strong 
grandmasters,one IM and one FM this summer, and with 
the exception of Joel Benjamin (variation II below), they all
played miserable variations (although in one of the cases
I had not yet discovered the refutation).  

At best, strong players have been socialized into a paradigm 
that is skeptical of very early gambits, witness the 
theoretically unjustified absence of King's Gambits from 
most Informants.     But in the post-Benko-gambit era 
(where black has a sound   gambit following three very good 
opening moves for white), is it not necessary to have an open mind 
about the Smith- Morra?  Moreover, most people would agree
that 1...c5 is not the best reply to 1 e4.  It is popular because 
it leads to interesting positions, but certainly after one 
move white has done more to improve his position than black
has.  At this point perhaps it could be correct to gambit 
the pawn rather than play into black's hands by opening the 
C-file for him with 2 Nf3 and 3 d4. 

Finally, what does it mean to ask whether the gambit is 
"correct" or "sound".  I submit that at the master level
this must be a comparative question.  It is incumbent 
upon advocates of the gambit to show that white has the
same chances with the gambit as he does with the open
sicilian or 3 Bb5, 2 c3, the closed, or the grand prix, all 
of which grandmasters play.  

It helps to quantify the argument.  On a scale of 1-100, 
with 50 being equal, 60 +/=, 70 t/-, and 80 +-, 40 =/+ and 
30 -/+, my impression is that most strong players
think the gambit would get them a 45 or 50 as white
against strong players, whereas they would get about
a 55 as white in more standard variations.  Thus, the 
question is whether the Smith-Morra is being 
underrated by 5-10 points.      
 
In Trends in the Smith-Morra Gambit, IM Andrew Martin
states:  "The Gambit borders on the edge of being 
correct....Objectively I am worried by the new black ideas
shown in Chapters Two and Five.  Surprisingly, all the old 
main lines are turning out good for white...."  The last part
of the statement is important and quite true.  As for the 
new ideas, one is definately bad (variation I below), and
the other (variation 3) may be.  Variations 4-5 are old
lines, the most challenging of which is Larry Evans' 
(variation 5).


VARIATION I.  1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 c3 dc 4 Nc3 e6 5 Nf3 Nc6 
6 Bc4 Qc7 7 0-0 Nf6.

This is one of the lines that worried IM Martin in Trends,
and some American grandmasters are playing it.  It is
the latest "refutation" of the Smith-Morra, but it is 
actually good for white.

8 Nb5! Qb8 9 e5 Ng4 [if 9...Ne5, then 10 Ne5 Qe5 11 Re1!
Qb8 (11...Qc5 12 Bf1 +-) 12 Qd4 +- d6 13 Bf4 e5 14 Re5.
If 12...Nh5, then 13 Qe5] 10 Bf4!  now black has three
choices:

(A) 10...Nge5 11 Ne5 Ne5 12 Rc1! +- a6 [12...d6 13 Be5
de 14 Nc7; 12...f6 13 Bb3] 13 Be6! ab 14 Be5 Qe5 
15 Rc8 wins.

(B)  10...a6 11 Nd6 Bd6 12 ed +/-

(C)  10...f6 11 Nd6 Bd6 12 ed +/- 0-0 13 h3 Nge5 14 Be5


VARIATION II.   4...Nc6 5 Nf3 e6 6 Bc4 Bb4 7 0-0 Nge7

8 Nb5! [8 Bg5? f6 9 Be3 0-0 10 Qb3 Bc3 11 Qc3 Qa5
12 Rfd1 Qc3 13 bc f5 14 e5 Ng6 15 Bc5 Nge5! =/+ 
Malpert-J. Benjamin 1992, see 10-4-92 New York 
Times (city edition) for full game; 8 Qe2 0-0 9 Rd1
Ng6 (better than 9...Bc3 Matulovic--Rabar, 1953, BCO2
at148 n.66) and white is at best equal], and now black
has two replies:

(A) 8...d5 9 Bf4

9 ed ed 10 Bd5 0-0 offers white nothing.  Zaitsev-
Furman, USSR 1973, BC02 at 148 n. 65.  10 Bf4 is 
murky, but is likely to be better for black. 10...0-0
11 Nc7 [11 Bb3 Be6 12 Ng5 Rc8 13 a3 a6 14 Nc7 Rc7
15 Bc7 Qc7 16 ab Nb4 =/+] 11 Nc7 dc 12 Qd8 [12 Na8
Nd5 13 Bg3 Ba5 -/+] Rd8 13 Na8 Nd5 14 Bc7 [14 Bg3
Ba5-/+] Rd7 [14...Re8 15 a3 Ba5 16 Ba5 Na5 17 Rfd1
Be6 18 Rd5 Bd5 19 Nc7 +/-] 15 Rfd1 Nc7 16 Rd7 Na8
and white seems to have nothing.

9...0-0 10 Nc7 and now on either dc or de, white looks
better.

(B) 8...a6 9 Nd6 Bd6 10 Qd6 Ng6.  At first black seems
slightly better, but 11 a4! binds the queeside and 
prepares Ba3.  White has real chances for an advantage.
For example, 11...Qe7 12 Qg3 0-0 13 b3 Qf6 [13...d6
14 Ba3 e5 15 Rfd1 Rd8 16 Rd2 Na5 17 Rad1 Nc4 
18 bc Be6 19 Bd6 Qe8 20 Ne5 Qa4 21 f4! advantage 
white] 14 Bg5 Qc3 15 Bd2 Qf6 is at least a repetition,
but white can try for more: 16 Rac1 Nge5 17 Ne5 Qe5
18 Qh3 [or maybe even 18 Bf4 Qe4 19 Bd3 Qd4 20 Bd6]

  
VARIATION 3   4...e6 5 Nf3 a6 6 Bc4 b5 7 Bb3 Bb7

This is the other line that worried IM Martin in Trends 
in the Smith-Morra Gambit.  If 8 Qe2, then d6 9 0-0
Nd7 10 Rd1 b4 is good for black, Kocsis--Bangiev,
Budapest 1989, Trends # 58.  And after 8 0-0 b4 
9 Na4 Be4, white does not have two pawns' worth of
compensation.  See Pliester--van der Wiel, Ostend 1983,
Trends # 56.
 
White's best hope is 8 Nd5!, which FM E. Blockhuis 
recently suggested is worthy of analysis.  He provided
several scintillating follow-ups in a night of analysis.
I am not prepared to put variations into print, but 
suffice it to say that the sacrifice is stronger than it
first appears.  After 8...ed 9 ed, with the idea of Re1 and
Nd4, I have had surprising trouble defending with black.
9...d6 followed by Be7 and Kf8, or themes like Bc8 and 
Ra7, and 9...Bd6 have been my focus.  Black is farther
behind in development and has a weaker queenside
than in analogus sacrifices in the Najdorf variation.
 		
The sacrifice may be correct.  I submit that its success
is crucial to the soundness of the Smith-Morra Gambit, 
since black otherwise gets a comfortable game with 
this variation.


VARIATION 4   4...Nc6 5 Nf3 d6 6 Bc4 e6 7 0-0 a6 
8 Qe2 Nf6 9 Rd1 Qc7 10 Bf4 Be7

This is a popular old line.  But the game Belenko-Rivlin, 
corr. 1990, Informant 50/170; Trends #27, and an 
Informant Editors' note to the game changes the 
character of the line.

11 e5!?  Nh5 12 Bg5 Bg5 13 Ng5 Nf4 14 Qf3 de 15 Nce4 
Nd4 16 Qa3 f6 [16...Nc2 17 Nd6 Kf8 18 Nb5 Na3 19 Nc7
Nc4 20 Rd8 +-, Eds.' note, Inf. 50/170] 17 Nd6 Kd7
18 Nge4 Nd5 19 Rac1 Qc6 20 Qg3 g6 21 Nf6 Nf6 
22 Qe5 Ke7 23 Qd4 Qd7 24 Be6 1-0, Belenko--Rivlin.

On 15...0-0, the editors give 16 g3 Ng6 17 Nh7 Kh7 18 Qh5
Kg8 19 Ng5 Rd8 20 Qh7 Kf8 21 h4 Rd1 22 Rd1 Nd4
23 h5 Qc4 24 hg fg 25 Qh8 Ke7 26 Qg7 Kd6 27 Nf7 Kc5
28 Qe5 Qd5 29 Qc7 unclear.  The final asessment is
unnecessarily conservative, even for such a staid
journal.  Black is in trouble.

The editors do not analyze 15...0-0 16 g3 Ng6 17 Nh7
Nd4.  The lines are wild, but the following looks good
for white: 18 Qh5 Qc4 19 N7g5 Rd8 20 Nf6 Kf8 21 Qh7
Ne2 [21...Nf3 22 Kg2; 21...Ke7 22 N6h7] 22 Kh1 Qc6 23 f3 Ke7
24 Rd8 Kd8 25 Qg7.19 N4g5 Rd8 [19...f6 20 Nf6 Rf6 21 Qh7] 
20 Nf6 Kf8 21 Qh7 looks good for white, 20...Nf3 21 Kg2.   
 
VARIATION 5 (Larry Evans' line)  4...Nc6 5 Nf3 d6 6 Bc4 a6

Now, if the normal 7 0-0 Nf6 8 Qe2 Bg4 9 Rd1 e5! 
[perhaps not the expected 9...Bf3 10 Qf3
Ne5 11 Qe2 because it is not clear that the exchanges relieve 
black's game to the extent that people have assumed.
I am indebted to Kevin Stokker for this observation.],
and black is a tempo up  (a6) on another old line that
is slightly better for white.  The position is equal. 

7 Bg5 Nf6 8 Bf6 gf 9 0-0 e6 10 Nd4 [10 Nh4 is 
interesting, and its quality may depend upon
whether follow-up sacrifices are sound.  For example,
10...f5 11 Qh5 Be7 (11...fe 12 Ne4 d5 13 Rad1 Be7 14 Nf5
perhaps)12 ef] 10...Nd4 11 Qd4 b5 12 Bb3 Rb8.  Now, FM Neil
Carr, in Developments in the Smith-Morra Gambit, 1980-89, 
#26 recommends 13 a4 to take away b5 from black's
bishop.  However, 13 Kh1, as played in Stewart--Harman,
correspondence, 1980 (which is game 26), seems better.
Bb5 is not really a problem, and White must hurry to get f5 in. 
I think the position is unclear.

I hope this analysis is helpful and leads to further
playing of and research into the Smith-Morra gambit.

SM Rod Malpert