Possible, I don't know exactly. After 3...g6 4.Nf3 d3 Black has the 3...d3 variation, but limited White's options.

Instead of exchanging and repeating their opinions Dji and Meat should start the fight after 6...a6 7.Bg5. I would welcome another interesting game like Ostapbender - Smyslov_Fan. Come on, guys!
In case Uberdeker choses the Fianchetto, I have some ideas for Black after 7.e5. It's dubious reputation might not be deserved.

PS I stand corrected by Dji. The defence with Nge7 WITHOUT d6 should also be on the list of recommendations.

MNb wrote on 07/27/06 at 05:13:17:


I haven't actually given it up completely. It's still very usefull for rapid games and whenever I meet one of those boring 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 guys who thinks their last name is Kan or Taimanov  .
If you play 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 you will have to play against: Najdorf, Scheveningen, Dragon, acc. dragon, pseudo dragon, Sveshnikov, Kalashnikov, Four knights, pin variation, Hedgehog, Kan/Taimanov, Paulsen, ...Qb6 lines, ...Bc5 lines etc. These variations represent a lot of different styles and carry a huge amount of theory. I like to have at least one way of annoying Black...

So I will join Ben's team!
I have played the Morra since 1992 a total of 43 times in normal and rapid games with a score of 62% (+22 = 9 -12)

Quote:


Ah, there's nothing more convincing than adding a '!' to a move and claiming an edge without giving any further analysis.
I don't have the time to do a research on 7. Bg5 right mow, but it doesn't look very impressive to me at first sight.
As Monk uses to say: "I could be wrong now, but you know... I'm not!" 

OstapBender wrote on 07/26/06 at 20:10:35:


Guess what? I will surprise everybody and especially Überdeker by joining his team. There are a couple of reasons for this.

1. "White will always stand worse. Our friend MNb has expressed his disagreement on several occasions." Very onesided. On those several occasions I have explained, why I do not recommend the Morra Gambit. See also the end of this post.

2. "being a pawn down with no propects of retreiving it and an insufficiently active position" It is exactly this kind of overoptimism, that has brought me (and I suppose also Ben Hague) quite a few wins. Somebody has to cool Überdeker down a bit or I predict disaster for him. That "want to get similar positions without dropping a pawn" quote is another fine example. There are so many MG games, in which White wins because of an invasion along the c-file ...

3. Ben Hague is a very experienced and successfull MG-player. We have to restore the balance a bit.

4. Just like my hero I do not only play gambits - sometimes I defend them.

So let me shorten the list of refutations of our dear Überdeker a bit.
Not recommended:
4...e6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Nf3 b5.
All defences which rely on e6-e5.
The Chicago Defence (a6, b5, Ra7).
The Siberian Trap (Nc6, e6, Nf6, Qc7).
The Leonidov Attack (4...Nc6 5.Nf3 g6 6.h4!).
Scheveningen Defence (Nc6, e6, d6) with an early Bd7.
Scheveningen Defence with Qa5.
Variations with Bc5 or Bb4.
Variations with Nge7 without d6.

Should be considered:
The Fianchetto Defence (4...g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Bc4 Nc6).
The defence a la Taimanov (4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.o-o Nge7)
The defence a la Najdorf/Scheveningen (4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.o-o Be7 - avoids setups with Bg5 - 8.Qe2 a6 9.Rd1 Qc7 10.Bf4 Nf6).
The striving for Bg4 defence (4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6).

"But it certainly makes sense to ask a Morra player why he shouldn't  dramatically reduce his repertoire while chucking the most unsound components by simply playing 2. c3 or 2. Ktf3/3. c3."
This question, already asked by Pachman more than 20 years ago, also has been answered since a couple of decade. With the Morra Gambit White avoids the boring 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 lines as Black already has captured on d4.
A better question is this one. Why play this gambit (2.d4), that requires about as much theoretical knowledge as the main line (there are transpositions to the Caro-Kann Panov Attack, the Franco Benoni, the QGA and the Semi-Tarrasch; Black can even defend in Gurgenidze style), leaves Black a wider choice, offers White no choice and does not give sharper play than the main line (2.Nf3 and 3.d4) ? Imo the Morra Gambit is just not a practical choice and that's why Dragonslayer - if I understand him correctly - and I have given it up.

With good preparation and very accurate play Überdeker might survive the opening with a tiny edge - provided he choses one of the defences I recommend. Even then I am not sure, if Black can prove more than equality. But unlike Überdeker I do not consider that as a victory for White.
Also looking forward to the game.

I use to play Gallagher's line with d6, a6 Nf6 and Bg4. Since I do so I haven't lost a single game against the Morra and never got bad positions. I don't know what theory gives as white's best try here, but I'd be suprised if he had a convincing answer to this system.
You can certainly crush unprepared opponents with it, but against accurate defence I think white is simply in trouble. After all he sacrifices a pawn for only a few tempi, and not some random pawn but a central one!

If anyone wants a game in the Morra I'd be happy to take on the White side. This sort of correspondence type chess isn't my best form of chess by a long way, I seem to need a bit more adrenaline to get the thought processes working properly. However I have been playing the Morra since 1989 (131 games, w 89 d 25 l 17) so I do know something about the opening. If anyone is interested I assume the starting position would be after 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 ?