Talk:Smith–Morra Gambit

message: I removed the entire analysis section, but it still remains in the history. The section was giving chessical evaluations too much space, and things like "recommended for Black" are likely to be contested by other sources, and may constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. I think a lot can be added back, but in a different form. As compensation, I wrote up a section about the history, especially Smith and Morra, whom the opening is named after. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis removed 

message: No doubt acceptance of the gambit is most common, but since this is an article on the Smith-Morra overall, the lead should bold the defining line (i.e. stopping at 3.c3) and the diagram should show the position after this move. Going to edit this now. 213.249.135.36 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section and image 

message: According to the fourth edition of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, ECO [BZ1] is 1. e4 c4 2. F4 and the line 1. e4 c5 2. d4 dd4 3. c3 has ECO code [B20].Cbigorgne (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Cbigorgne, do you have a hard copy of ECO B? Would you mind providing a full citation with page number? I can confirm from my electronic copy of the fourth edition that they assign the Morra to B20/04; but this contradicts every indirect source I've seen on the ECO codes, including Chess Informant's own website and recently published issues of Informant (e.g. #112, p. 81, game 91 (Esserman - van Wely, Orlando 2011); #117, p. 149, game 46 (Mons - Naiditsch, Germany 2013), and #118, p. 195, game 45 (Berg-Blomqvist, Goteborg 2013), all of which are listed under B21). I used to have a hard copy of "small ECO" which might help resolve the issue but not anymore. Quite possibly we should list both codes with a note explaining the discrepancy. Cobblet (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the fourth Edition hard copy of ECOB page 172 [B20] we have lines [B20] 04-06 : 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. c3 dc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 ... and  page 170, we have : B20 : 1. e4 c5  without 2. f4 (cf. B21) 2. c3 (cf. B22), 2. Nc3 (cf. B23-B26), 2. Nf3 (cf. B27-B99)Cbigorgne (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've noted the discrepancy in the article. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECO Code 

message: In the "Morra Gambit Declined" section of the article, the following paragraph occurs:
"The latter has a bad reputation, as square c3 is free for the knight. Still 5...Nf6 (5...e5; 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 e5) 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 Qd6 is likely to transpose to a main line of the Alapin: 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 e6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6."
It is not clear what "the latter" refers to in this paragraph. My guess is that it's a reference to the Scandinavian Formation, but since that variation is no longer last on the list, the term "the latter" no longer makes sense. I thought about rewriting this paragraph myself, but it's not my sentiment, and indeed it's almost an opinion (since there's no citation to support the claim). Therefore I am inclined to simply delete it -- but I will wait, in case anyone has an objection. Thanks and happy editing. Chillowack (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Reference