Originally posted by black beetleWhite should continue 14.b5! Na5 15.Qa4 Qc7 then 16.Rac1 is good but I think 16.Ng5! is absolutely crushing:
And just a note: 11. b4 is fine after 11. ...Nxb4 12.Nxe5, but everything is cool for the Black after 11. ...Be6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Qc4 Qd7.
The Black should retreat his N at d8 and then he will stand firmly, his position will be quite tenable; I think that if the Black plays very carefully he must fear not this gambit. However your algorithm is crushing and I surely would prefer not to be engaged with you in a Smith-Morra clasp🙂
Originally posted by Squelchbelcham i missing somethin but wen u play 16.Ng5, isnt ur c3 knight hanging? also, wen the black queen takes, black still defends his outside knight
White should continue 14.b5! Na5 15.Qa4 Qc7 then 16.Rac1 is good but I think 16.Ng5! is absolutely crushing:
[pgn]
[Event "C2.1998.0.00149"]
[Site "IECG email"]
[Date "1998.09.16"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Jansen,Tonek"]
[Black "Proctor,Dale"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qe2 Be7
...[text shortened]... 21.Rd2 Nxe3 22.Nxe3 a6 23.Qb4 Nb7 24.bxa6 Nc5
25.Qc4+ Kh8 26.Rcd1 1-0
[/pgn]
Originally posted by banx99The queen is trapped after 16. ... Qxc3? 17. Rac1. White threatens 17. Nxe6 after which d5 becomes a nice square for white's c3 knight. Black's knight is bad on a5. Yeah, 16. Ng5 seems crushing.
am i missing somethin but wen u play 16.Ng5, isnt ur c3 knight hanging? also, wen the black queen takes, black still defends his outside knight
EDIT: Btw, after 16. ... ~Rfc8 17. Nxe6 we can see why black's knight on a5 is so bad.
Originally posted by kbaumenRight; on the other hand, strategically, the essential with Smith-Morra seems to be the fast development of the King's N at f3 instead of d4, as from there it may support e5 or take part at a kingside assault. Usually the Sicilian devotees feel uncomfortable with this because they cannot exert pressure on that dangerous light piece -and if they play even a click down their position goes easily down the drain;
The queen is trapped after 16. ... Qxc3? 17. Rac1. White threatens 17. Nxe6 after which d5 becomes a nice square for white's c3 knight. Black's knight is bad on a5. Yeah, 16. Ng5 seems crushing.
EDIT: Btw, after 16. ... ~Rfc8 17. Nxe6 we can see why black's knight on a5 is so bad.
Originally posted by black beetleYes that looks a very solid, if rather passive position.
...and so with the sequence 14. ...Nd8 15. Rc1 Nf7 the Black feels comfortable with his centre;
My only "algorithms" are 2 books & a 4.5m game database.😛
Some smart-arse will say that the Morra is refuted by such-and-such move order but the truth is that even in the toughest lines, White stands practical chances of the win.
There is no "refutation" other than if you play against an engine; of course being a pawn down in a tactical open game you are doomed to defeat.
Against an average Sicilian Defence player, who's knowledge of the Morra is probably sadly lacking simply because they only face it very rarely, White stands excellent chances of winning & 100% chances of having a fun game.
I have yet to play a Morra game, here or OTB that I haven't enjoyed & that is what is important to me, more so than winning.
I really did not meant to make you angry, SQ, and I am not smart ass. I enjoy the games and I hesitate not to resign when my position is clearly not tenable, or offer a draw even when I am a pawn up in case I liked my opponents' style. My personal game here are played only for fun and for making myself stronger, and I learn from everybody no matter of his current rating;
I just said that we see Smith-Morra rarely played by GMs exactly because most lines are drawish or favour the Black. When a GM strives for a win he prefers other variations. That simple;
best regards
Originally posted by SquelchbelchMy friend SQ, in CC the players like you and me are commonly based on games played and annotated by GMs, and many lines we us are extremely sophisticated due to the post mortem analyses by these giants, which -neeedles to say- thy are backed up by strong engines; therefore when I play against a, say, Smith-Morra and I am backed up with data by annotators like Marovic, Gligorits, Ljubojevits, Kasparov, Dreev et al it's quite hard for me to loose.
What is more or less sound to a GM has absolutely zero relevance to us though. You agree?
So no my friend, I rather agree with Korch.-
best regards
Originally posted by black beetleAll I know is that you'd be in serious trouble had you played the line you advocated above certainly not "everything is cool for Black" when in actual fact, Black is virtually lost.
My friend SQ, in CC the players like you and me are commonly based on games played and annotated by GMs, and many lines we us are extremely sophisticated due to the post mortem analyses by these giants, which -neeedles to say- thy are backed up by strong engines; therefore when I play against a, say, Smith-Morra and I am backed up with data by annotator ...[text shortened]... it's quite hard for me to loose.
So no my friend, I rather agree with Korch.-
best regards
That tends to show there is a lack of serious specialist analysis of most lines in the Morra & what theory there is comes from analysis by the likes of Langrock, Palkovi & Burgess.
In fact, compared to the tomes of GM Sicilian Defence analysis over the decades, you stand on far shakier theoretical grounds both playing against and making assertions about positions in the Morra than you do virtually any other variation of the Sicilian.
"That tends to show there is a lack of serious specialist analysis of most lines in the Morra & what theory there is comes from analysis by the likes of Langrock, Palkovi & Burgess."
Gligoric, and of course the world famous trainer Marovic, are surely serious specialists. However, my friend SQ, kindly please feel free to trust the Smith-Morra against your Sicilian opponents.-