Dear Hubert,

I really do not know, why I must lay my hands on additional literature on the Morragambit. I have explained many times before, why I do not play this opening anymore. As I do not intend to play the Sicilian as Black for the next decades either, I will save my valuable western currency for other subjects. So thanks for your advice, but no, thanks.
Still just a warning. That death bell has ringed many times before. Every time again Black players thought, it was the final one. Palkovi mentions that h6 line; I have taken a brief look at it and thought it OK for Black - but not a straightforward refutation. Also 7.Bg5 remains.
That 3...Qa5 line is another example of overoptimism. Not that it is bad - but 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nc6 (dxc3) 5.b4 Qc7 6.b5 Ne5 7.Nxe5 Qxe5 8.Qxd4 is a decent possibility for White, Makropoulos-Ljubojevic, Athena 1981. Palkovi recommends 5.Bc4 dxc3 6.Nxc3 d6 7.h3 (yes, this move is a success for Black) Nf6 8.Qe2 e6 9.o-o Be7 10.Be3 o-o 11.a3 followed by 12.b4.
I stick to my statement, that Black has good prospects, if he avoids underestimation and remains a little modest.

Ch.gr.
Mark

"Why does everyone waste their time discussing an opening that simply drops a pawn."
Because of all those Black players who, like MrF, underestimate this gambit, think they will have an easy job and only wake up when it is too late.
Since almost 20 years all Morragambiteers know, that both 8.Bg5 and 7.Bg5 are better. For more details I refer to theorybooks - plenty around - or some other threads.
Still 6...a6 is a very good move, if Black is prepared to conduct an accurate defence.

My info came from Starting out the siclian by emms

Unclear is what i aim for when i play some obscure gambit line!

The Milner Berry against the Caro-Kann and the smith morra are good examples.

i dont know if im going for an advantage when i play them im just going for somthing they dont know or dont know as well.

Shock value is important but only goes so far. The Fred delivers shock value but not enough to warrant about 10 or more minutes on the clock which a lot of people spend when they havent seen somthing before.

Im not convinced that the gambit it self is very sound i think that if black jsut excercises caution and plays a lot of solid moves he should be fine. I think the real test of the gambit is when black plays an early e5. This stops a lot of theoretical sacrifices and ideas.

The shock value is rather high in the smith morra because its very uncommon. I would say that it might be stronger than the open sicilian on the occasions its played simply because people dont know how to handle it. The open sicilian is very common. Somthing like 50 percent of professsional games are Sicilians and 25 percent of them are Najdorfs! So maybe the Smith-Morra could do some damage at the top level. GMs included! How many of them really have somthing prepared for it i wonder. I dont think they could just play chess against it. Thats a sure way to end up in a bad positon.

The Fianchetto variation never bothered me and I have a very high + score against it. a6 lines are a little more difficult but not a big problem. The biggest thing that any smith-morra player should know is the siberian trap and how to avoid it.

If you want any lines just hit me back and ill dig up the analysis i had on it back when i played it all the time.

Before the great deletion, there was a thread on the Morra where a few people showed that white does indeed get compensation in all lines with correct play. I tried cracking a few of his lines but they all seem to hold - if we ever get the old threads back then this one definitely makes for good viewing.

My personal opinion is that the morra gambit gives compensation for the pawn, possibly even enough compensation, but that other lines are better (though, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think the Open is the strongest continuation. On the subject of the 2150, I suppose I should mention he also plays the latvian from time to time ("when he's happy with the draw"), and a number of gambits as white. So, on his scale, I suppose he genuinely believes that the morra is stronger than the open sicilian, and I certainly don't believe it to be much worse myself. To clarify my feelings, I think that objectively after 3.d4 white's advantage is probably exhausted (note, this is personal opinion, not a solution to the problem 1...c5 + 3. d4 = ?), whereas the morra is objectively, theoretically and practically unclear, and therefore makes an excellent weapon.

I must confess that it's not a line I play against often, but I'd give serious consideration to 7.e5 in this line, which looks fun at least (whether it's sound or not is not something I've given due thought to, since at the level I play ideas like this do not have to be sound). However, in the line you mentioned (although I do not believe Bg5 is the correct move, I think white should just castle and get on with his plan of Qe2, Rd1 etc), I would maintain that white has small compensation for the pawn, even if it is indeed insufficient.

I'd be interested to see what the Palkovi book on the Morra says (I've still not gottena round to buying it, or indeed any openings book of the last two to three years except the SOS series) - I seem to remember hearing that it had some nice ideas in this variation.

Regards,
Craig

The Morra, despite black's high number of possible replies, continues to be an outstanding choice at club level. Last season I whipped it out against a 2150 who has been playing solely the sicilian defence for 15+ years, and after the game he remarked that it was only the second time he had ever faced it, and wondered why more people didn't play it since even he felt it was stronger than the open sicilians for white (possibly going a little too far there, but still...). Most players with black seem to chicken out into either a c3 sicilian (where they are already committed to a particular line which they may not usually play) or with this 3...d3 move (which just gives white an edge). Even those who accept it then seem to pretend that they're playing an open sicilian, which is known to be the wrong strategy. In the above game I was completely winning after 15 moves and, if it weren't for my spending 45 minutes analysing an unsound double piece sac (it looked fun...), finding the refutation and then playing it anyway... let's just say that I would have been bringing home the point.

From a practical point of view, I feel that the ...g6 line may be black's best, the kingside seems safer in those lines and Nd5 sac ideas just don't seem to work as well. Anyone playing the ...d6, ...e6 and ...a6 lines, while this may well be fine for black, are helping white out since this is the setup he has most probably studied and is also the one which the Morra seems most geared to. As for playing an early ...b5 and ...b4, in McGrew's excellent articles at chesscafe.com he shows that these ideas should be encouraged for white.

At GM level with the Morra, white probably gets compensation with exact play but he has better options. At candidate master level, the Morra is quite viable. At club level, the Morra will score heavily if someone spends the time learning it. Whether black is prepared or not.

I pray I am alive the day the Sicilian is finally refuted. Then there'll only be the petroff to worry about.

Regards,
Craig

I think that a strong candidate for Black's best line (e.g., a former US champion of my acquaintance opined that it "busts" the Smith-Morra) is 3...dc 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 a6.  The most well-known game with it is surely K. Smith-Evans, San Antonio 1972.  The line was the subject of a book by the American IM Tim Taylor.

Not especially. As I do not believe, that the lost posts will be refound, I will give an overview of the Morra Gambit. It will become clear, that White's main problem is Black's wide choice. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3.

2...e6 transposes to the Schmid-Benoni.
3...Nf6 is a main line of the Lasker-Alapin.
3...g6 4.cxd4 d5 5.exd5 transposes to the Panov-Attack.
3...d6 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 might transpose to the 2.c3 d6 variation.
3...d3 4.Bxd3 and the plan f4/Nf3 is attractive.
3...d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 and it is not clear, if White always can take benefit of the early exchange on d4. There are good some transpositions to the QGA and the Semi-Tarrasch, but what about Nf6 6.Nc3 Qa5 7.Nf3 Bg4 and e6 6.Nc3 Qd6 7.Nf3 Nf6 ?
Of course there is no reason, why Black should not accept the gambit. Then Black can play all kind of setups:
Najdorf: 4...a6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nf3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 followed by Nf6, Be7, Nbd7 and Nc5. Winning a second pawn with b4 is usually dangerous.
Dragon: 4...g6 5.Bc4 Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6.
Paulsen/Taimanov: 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.o-o Nge7, Bc5 or d6 8.Qe2 Nge7.
Scheveningen: 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.o-o a6 (the old main line sees Nf6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Rd1 e5) 8.Qe2 Be7 (avoids Bg5 lines) 9.Rd1 Qc7 (probably better than Qa5 and Bd7) 10.Bf4 Nf6 11.Rac1 Qb8.
Then there are several independent variations, like the Chicago Defense, the Siberian Trap, 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 e5, 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6.

My point is clear: Black has even more options than in the Open Sicilian. So my advice to Black is to buy a book on the Morra Gambit (does not really matter which one), chose a variation, collect some games from databases and spend an evening analysing. If Black is to lazy, then play 3...Nf6, 3...d6, 3...g6 or 3...d5 transposing to a 2.c3 variation.

My advice to White: if you like this structures, just play the Open Sicilian. You will already have a knight on d4, more choice and in the long run you will have to spend less time to study.

I have played the Morra Gambit for almost 10 years, but abandoned it when my opponents began to outprepare me. Playing the Morra Gambit is a kind of Hope Chess (see Dan Heisman on chesscafe.com): White hopes to catch the opponent in some trap.
The Morra Gambit might be theoretically correct, but it is not practical.