From: alacron!ai386u!adb@uunet.UU.NET (Alan David Brunelle)
Subject: Re: Morra Gambit 
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:16:21 GMT



(mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI) (Mika Kukkonen) writes:

> 
> In <1k1eu9INN203@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> Rod Malpert <ram4@cornell.edu> writes:
> 
> (...)
> 
> >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
> 
> Now Benko is definetely something different from Morra. In Benko whites
> extra pawn is mostly worthless (as some pawn down endgames even favour
> black!), and black has nice open lines at Q-side and lots of different
> plans. In Morra white has to either win back his pawn or mate in next 20
> moves, otherwise he is just a pawn down. One tempo in development and
> half-open d-line is not much for a pawn, when again I note that these
> same advantages are available to white even in normal Sicilian.

I have a two problems with this argument. After:

I.
	1. e4 c5; 2. d4 cxd4; 3. c3 dxc3; 4. Nxc3 and eg. 4. ... Nc6

	White has the 1/2 "beat"* he started with, plus *three* important open 
	lines (f1-a6, c1-h6, c1-h8) plus one important half-open line (d1-d8). 
	Furthermore, white has 2 extra "beat"s coming up (Bf1-c4 & 
	Bc1-e3/f4/g5). Thus white can get all of the pieces developed to good 
	squares at least two "beat"s ahead of black, plus the 1/2 "beat" 
	white started with. If I remember my pre-1900 Chess Math, 3 "tempi" 
	equals 1 pawn. It may be argued that white will end up with more 
	than the two extra "beat"s, but I believe that the 2.5 tempi + 
	c&d file pressure + space advantage should be worth the pawn.

		* - From a Pandolfini article in _Chess Life & Review_.

	(True, to a certain extant white can get pieces developed rapidly
	in a traditional open Sicilian - but then white has to contend
	with reams of opening analysis, in the Morra the analysis is much
	more confined.)

II.
	Why is the pawn worth so much more in the black side of a Sicilian
	Morra then the white side of a Benko? True the open a&b files in
	the Benko, and the latent power of the Bg7, and quick development
	offer great chances for black. (Also the fact that the e7/d6/c5
	pawn chain is, in general, easier to defend/harder to attack then
	the d5/e4 white chain makes end-games easier for black.) BUT 
	white still has a pawn, relatively easy development, some
	space advantage and *many* ways to decline/return the gambit with
	at least a minimal ADVANTAGE. In the Morra, I don't know of any ways 
	to decline or return the pawn that gives black the ADVANTAGE, 
	perhaps an early equality, but no more.

	Furthermore, the Morra shares the ability to make relatively 
	easy moves quickly (eg. in the Benko: the Bf8-g7, Bc8-a6(xf1), 
	Ng8-f6(-g4-e5), Nb8-a6-b4 or Nb8-d7-e5 or Nb8-d7-b6, Qd8-b6/a5,
	Rh8-f8-b8/a8 & etc. In the Morra: Bf1-c4, Rh1-f1-d1, Qd1-e2, Ng1-f3,
	Nc1xc3, Bc1-e3/f4/g5, Ra1-c1 & etc.) thus saving on time, *and still
	getting an active position*. Who was it that said something like 

		"The nasty part of me thinks that Benko plays that line 
		 because of his time troubles - he gets 10 moves for a pawn"

---

My major problem with the Morra is that to a certain extent I agree with the
original poster that answering 1. e4 with 1. ... c5 just can't be 
positionally correct. (Mednis stated something like the Najdorf *is* correct, 
but needs a heck of alot of variations backing it up.) If it is not
correct positionally, I don't believe that giving black a pawn for his
troubles makes the most sense. So in conclusion, I would have to state:

	"If the Sicilian is not positionally correct, it will require a 
	 heck of alot of variations to prove it!"