From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Smith-Morra Analysis (long)
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:24:43 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1k1eu9INN203@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> ram4@cornell.edu (Rod Malpert) writes:
>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.

I wouldn't say "unplayable" but I do think it is somewhat
illogical.  IMHO, the Belgrade Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 ed 5. Nd5!?) has more of a foundation (although
I can show you two lines which are =/+).  

>
>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).  

I've also seen strong players choose miserable lines when confronted
with this gambit.   This does not change my personal belief (and
those of most GMs IMHO) that this line is insufficient.  In short,
empirical evidence gathered in Swisses is tainted by spur of the
moment whims and desire for experimentation (when it is not necessary -
ask your average Russian who has memorized reams of S-M theory in 
school).  Go ahead, ask them to show you the long, boring lines
where white is effortlessly neutralized.  Leonid Bass did that for me
once, and believe me this gambit doesn't sound like a lot of fun if
you play him.  Rather than torture readers in this way (since Bass is
in Spain) let's look at some specifics.  But if you've got a favorite
Russian to ask, ask him or her.  I have less than a 1% variance in
25-move variations from Bass, Kudrin, and Lein.  There's no worse
feeling than knowing you've squandered a golden moment (being paired
with a GM) by playing an unsound line they know inside out (when you
could have learned something with a more creative approach).   Suddenly,
you're facing slow hideous ending death vs. Anatoly Lein and that truly
is a bad feeling.  See Wilder-Lein, Lone Pine 198? for a good example
of the RIGHT way to do things.
	 
But let's end the digression and get to some lines.

>
>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.

I don't buy this.  Strong players have independent modes of thought
and evaluation.  If an individual believes the S-M to be unsound,
then that person has concrete reasons (hopefully) for that belief.
I'll outline some of mine here.

My point of view:  giving up a center pawn is altogether too much on
move 3.

> 
>In Trends in the Smith-Morra Gambit, IM Andrew Martin
>states:  "The Gambit borders on the edge of being 
>correct...."

Naturally IM Martin would like to sell more of these assembly line
pamphlets.  He would never say "This silly gambit had some poor play
by black and hence white won a few times."
 
Let's skip to Variation '5' - the Larry Evans 'method'.

After the moves
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3? (just to irritate gambit enthusiasts)
3...dc 4. Nc3: Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 a6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Qe2 Bg4
(sorry, I am now convinced black is better! - who disagrees?)
9. Rd1, 9...e5 is given with the comment:
 
>[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. 

Disagree!  Notwithstanding
Kevin Stokker's 'observation' (which I don't buy.  I don't 
assume anything, I'm looking at the position), I take special
exception to the evaluation "equal."
I see an extra center pawn for black.  Substitute instead the
phrase "with careful play, black should be able to realize his
pawn advantage" and I will agree.

Now discussion reverts to 7. Bg5, which is also not very scary:

>
>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.

Disagree!  Now this is even worse.  10. Nd4 in the first sentence in
the preceding paragraph is directly analogous to a book line in the
...Qb6 Rauser, but here white is a pawn down!  This simply cannot be good. 
Why?  What's the justification?  I simply believe the two bishops PLUS
a pawn are too much of an odds-giving!  Ask your buddy, readers, see
what he or she thinks.
And I'm supposed to listen to Neil Carr about the 10. Nh4 line
(and 10. Nh4 is not a scary move to
Rauser fans)?  I'm sorry,I cannot believe in these 
positions for White.  Remember, black has a solid center pawn more.
Good for blitz?  I wouldn't even say that.  I would prefer black in
a blitz game.

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

Thanks for the ideas - I really do not believe in this gambit.  
Let's hear other opinions.

>SM Rod Malpert


-IM Mark Ginsburg