Only Chess
26 Aug 07
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by ShinidokiErm how do I prove the opening's worth in thin air?
as I said, its up to white to demonstrate the win, if white cannot, then we can assume black wins as he will be a pawn up.
Show me how you would defend after 4.Nxc3 & I'll show you how I beat you up🙂
28 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ShinidokiWhite is not obligatory demonstrate win - they have enough enough compensation enough for draw. And In Morra white have compensation for pawn. Prove that I`m wrong.
as I said, its up to white to demonstrate the win, if white cannot, then we can assume black wins as he will be a pawn up.
P.S. I haven`t heard such kind of BS in this forum before.
28 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchAlrighty then!
Erm how do I prove the opening's worth in thin air?
Show me how you would defend after 4.Nxc3 & I'll show you how I beat you up🙂
me and fritzy have been doing some work..... after a lot of experimentation we came up with this....
[Event "home"]
[Site "home"]
[Date "2007.08.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 b6 5. Nf3 Bb7 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O a6 8. Bf4
d6 9. Re1 Be7 10. Rc1 Nf6 11. Ng5 Bc8 12. Qf3 Nc6 13. Red1 Bd7 14. Qe2 b5 15.
Bb3 Qb8 16. Nf3 O-O 17. e5 dxe5 18. Nxe5 Nxe5 19. Bxe5 Qb7 20. Bc2 Bc6 21. Qd3
Rfd8 22. Qh3 g6 23. Qh4 Ne4 24. Qg4 Nxc3 25. Bxc3 Rxd1+ 26. Rxd1 Bd5 27. Qd4 f6
28. Qg4 Kf7 29. Rd3 h5 30. Qf4 b4 31. Be1 Rc8 32. Rd2 g5 33. Qe3 Bxg2 34. Re2
Bd5 1-0
I'm sure there are some improvements, but It seems quite possible to parry whites attack and keep the pawn -- though I was actually suprised how difficualt it was to keep....
you find a better line for white, I'll see if I can refute it...
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by ShinidokiTalking about opening - 9.Re1 seems not the best. Better is 9.Qe2 with Rd1.
Alrighty then!
me and fritzy have been doing some work..... after a lot of experimentation we came up with this....
[Event "home"]
[Site "home"]
[Date "2007.08.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 b6 5. Nf3 Bb7 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O a6 8. Bf4
...[text shortened]... ep....
you find a better line for white, I'll see if I can refute it...
28 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ShinidokiWell 4...b6? 5...Bb7 looks a toothless, ugly way to play against the Morra.
Alrighty then!
me and fritzy have been doing some work..... after a lot of experimentation we came up with this....
[Event "home"]
[Site "home"]
[Date "2007.08.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 b6 5. Nf3 Bb7 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O a6 8. Bf4
ep....
you find a better line for white, I'll see if I can refute it...
I'd be tempted to play an early 6.e5 then maybe 6...Nc6, 7.Bc4
& 7...e6 looks almost forced here:
black to move
Then black's KS starts tripping over itself with an ugly N(g)e7 limits the scope of the Q & Bf8.
Next I'd castle then active the Q, dark square B & Rf1-d1 & white has a huge spacial advantage with very good looking chances.
Also, did I miss something but the result seems to be 1-0.
Hardly evidence against the gambit!
28 Aug 07
In a book he wrote on the Modern Benoni Defense, John Nunn wrote "If God played God in the Modern Benoni, White would win. But Black has excellent practical chances at lower levels."
I think that the above sentiment applies to the Smith-Morra. White has at least SOME compensation for the sacrificed pawn. A player who enjoys the initiative should win often with the Smith-Morra. Black really doesn't have much of a serious winning chance until an endgame is reached, at which time he should probably almost always win. But as Tarrasch, I believe, once said: "Before the endgame, the gods have placed the middlegame!"
28 Aug 07
What books are considered canon books in this opening? There just isn't much out there that I can see. I'm wondering if Davies has it in his new book called Gambiteer I.
On an unrelated note, I spoke to Ken Smith a few times when ordering books from Chess Digest years ago, and he was a great guy. He was thrilled that I read his book on the Modern Defense....I didn't mention that every game I played with it was a total disaster. (my fault, im sure!)
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by Korchagainst that all I got was a draw.....
Talking about opening - 9.Re1 seems not the best. Better is 9.Qe2 with Rd1.
[Event "home"]
[Site "home"]
[Date "2007.08.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "nn"]
[Black "nn"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 b6 5. Nf3 Bb7 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O a6 8. Bf4
d6 9. Qe2 Ne7 10. Rfd1 Ng6 11. Bg3 b5 12. Bb3 Be7 13. Rd2 Nc6 14. Rad1 Qb6 15.
Bxd6 O-O 16. Bxe7 Ncxe7 17. Ng5 Rad8 18. Rxd8 Rxd8 19. Qf3 Ne5 20. Qh5 h6 21.
Nxe6 Rxd1+ 22. Nxd1 N7g6 23. Nf4 Bxe4 24. Nc3 Qd4 25. Nxg6 Bxg6 26. Qe2 b4 27.
Nd1 a5 28. h3 1-0
28 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by wargamer66http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Morra-Gambit-Dynamic-Sicilian/dp/1888690321
What books are considered canon books in this opening? There just isn't much out there that I can see. I'm wondering if Davies has it in his new book called Gambiteer I.
On an unrelated note, I spoke to Ken Smith a few times when ordering books from Chess Digest years ago, and he was a great guy. He was thrilled that I read his book on the Modern D ...[text shortened]... I didn't mention that every game I played with it was a total disaster. (my fault, im sure!)
That is all you'll ever need theory-wise.
It has 1 bad review & it is true, the index is a bit dis-organised. You have to look at a certain chapter to find the games relevant to each line as many seem to be missing.
The theory is superb though as are Langrock's explanations of the basic tactical motifs & coverage of each defence.
Here's a more thorough review:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Modern_Mora_Gambit.html
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerWell said.
In a book he wrote on the Modern Benoni Defense, John Nunn wrote "If God played God in the Modern Benoni, White would win. But Black has excellent practical chances at lower levels."
I think that the above sentiment applies to the Smith-Morra. White has at least SOME compensation for the sacrificed pawn. A player who enjoys the initiative should ...[text shortened]... Tarrasch, I believe, once said: "Before the endgame, the gods have placed the middlegame!"
There are other fun gambits that can be very dangerous that fit into this category..... the Scotch Gambit and the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit come to mind immediately.
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by ShinidokiI expected more of you.
as I said, its up to white to demonstrate the win, if white cannot, then we can assume black wins as he will be a pawn up.
How can I demonstrate a win in any opening as black or white. It is impossible.
All I can demonstarte is that white has excellent attacking chances for his pawn and that the slightest slip by black will result in defeat. If, however, black weathers the storm he will emerge a pawn up and should win.
This is true of any gambit, indeed any sacrifice.
My results prove it against strong opponents. I would lose to a GM or Fritzy with any opening.
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by ShinidokiSo what? If both players are playing perfect then it must be draw.
against that all I got was a draw.....
[Event "home"]
[Site "home"]
[Date "2007.08.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "nn"]
[Black "nn"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 b6 5. Nf3 Bb7 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O a6 8. Bf4
d6 9. Qe2 Ne7 10. Rfd1 Ng6 11. Bg3 b5 12. Bb3 Be7 13. Rd2 Nc6 14. Rad1 Qb6 15. ...[text shortened]... N7g6 23. Nf4 Bxe4 24. Nc3 Qd4 25. Nxg6 Bxg6 26. Qe2 b4 27.
Nd1 a5 28. h3 1-0
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by Dragon Firewhat I meant was, white must prove he has compensation --- "win" was the wrong word to use.
I expected more of you.
How can I demonstrate a win in [b]any opening as black or white. It is impossible.
All I can demonstarte is that white has excellent attacking chances for his pawn and that the slightest slip by black will result in defeat. If, however, black weathers the storm he will emerge a pawn up and should win.
This is true of ...[text shortened]...
My results prove it against strong opponents. I would lose to a GM or Fritzy with any opening.[/b]
29 Aug 07
Originally posted by Korchso what?
So what? If both players are playing perfect then it must be draw.
zoot's suggesting that the reason the gambit does not appear at GM level is because its unsound.
so the point is, If fritz and I can only play it out to a draw then the gambit must be of "reasonable soundness"
29 Aug 07
Originally posted by wargamer66I own the Davies book Gambiteer I. He recommends the Wing Gambit: 1 e4 c5 2 b4.
What books are considered canon books in this opening? There just isn't much out there that I can see. I'm wondering if Davies has it in his new book called Gambiteer I.
On an unrelated note, I spoke to Ken Smith a few times when ordering books from Chess Digest years ago, and he was a great guy. He was thrilled that I read his book on the Modern D ...[text shortened]... I didn't mention that every game I played with it was a total disaster. (my fault, im sure!)
He even recommends the Wing Gambit against the French Defense: 1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 c5 4 b4.
I used to own Ken Smith's book (co-authored with SM John Hall) on the Modern Defense. It's a pretty mediocre book, IMO. That "every game I played with it was a total disaster..." isn't too surprising! 🙂