From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: Smith-Morra Analysis (long)
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:04:02 GMT

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

>There seems to be a lot of discussion about the Smith-
>Morra Gambit in this news group.  The puropse of this
(...)
>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).  

I asked this about our local GM, and he just commented that:

	1) It is easy to avoid (ie. 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 is 2.c3
	   Sicilian) and encountered so rarely, that there is no reason
	   to study something specific against it.

 	2) He doubted that it is correct, and besides, Sicilian is full
	   of lines where white can get active and attacking position
	   WITHOUT resorting to dubious pawn sacrifices.

Note that above points are not mine (although I mostly agree with them),
so I hope all Morra fanatics don't start flaming me. 

>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.

>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. 

Is not playing 2.d4 and 3.c3 opening c-file ? :) Ok, I admit that white
can probably profit faster from open c-file, if black allows it.

>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.  

"correct" or "sound" are, as you point out, quite relative terms. Some
people play 1.g4 at international level and claim it is sound and
correct. Theory and actual game have always been some distance apart,
simply because nobody cares to memorize some off-beat lines.

(...)

In all material I have seen about Morra, it has never dawned to me why
black has to play early Nc6. All I have found are some vague notes about
"blocking c-line". So I consider following line interesting:

>  
>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.

Interesting sacrifice. Without board at hand I won't comment it, but
instead I ask Morra people to refute following idea:

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Bc4 b5 7.Bb3 d6!?
8.O-O Be7 9.Qe2 Ra7!? intending 10.-Rd7.

This manouvre (Ra7-d7) has seen before, but without Nc6 it looks even
stronger, IF white does not have anything tactical.

To sum it up: I think white has in Morra enough compensation for the
pawn, but that is all. It scores well as a surprise weapon, but if black
is prepared or willing to accept transposition mentioned above, he has
nothing to fear.

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"