Tauromachie wrote on 04/22/17 at 12:29:31:


I re-visited this thread based on the new one. Here Black has an improvement, which is 16...Qa7! instead of 16...Rc8. It seems the other lines you posted are not that bad for White, but this line gives Black some advantage.

Now, 17. Qb4 cxb2 18. Qxb2 Nf6 19. Qa3 d5 20. exd5 Nxd5 is more or less forced I think. It is probably not winning for Black, but I can't see any winning chances at all for anyone but Black.

CraigEvans wrote on 04/20/17 at 13:44:57:


I don't like Esserman's book at all. He hides some of Black's best lines in an obscure foot note. Langrock has tried to stay objective and not present hope chess. Therefore, I think that Langrock might not have seen the idea. Esserman might have, and left it out, or maybe did not. The style in his book leaves both option as likely IMO.

I thought the point would be 17.d6 Qd8 18.Qxb4. But looking at it again, I slightly prefer black. The queenside play is automatic and the kingside seems solid.

In this line that CraigEvans gives, 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Bc4 b5 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.
O-O Na5 9.Re1 Nxb3 10.Qxb3 Bb7 11.a4 b4 12.Bg5 Be7 13.Bxe7 Qxe7, it seems like a good moment for 14.Nd5.

gunnar wrote on 10/03/13 at 12:31:51:


i think 9.Bc2 is the best move here and black still have problems to solve

Offhand I would have thought that, say, 9. Re1 Nxb3 10. Qxb3 looks "compensationy."  I wonder how much study has gone into such statements as "if black can take white's Bishop, he is simply better."

Hello everybody!

PLEASE HELP, dear Morra fans!!

I just recently started out the Morra and I simply love it, but I got a variation that it is not included in Esserman's book nor Langrock's book.
And it seems quite a good variation for black.

Here it is:

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 e6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Bc4 b5 7. Bb3 Nc6 (!?) 8. 0-0 Na5!?

Black plays Nc6 instead of Bb7 and a fast Na5. And because no Re1 yet, Nd5 simply not works.
Also Bc2 is not an option and if black can take white's Bishop, he is simply better.

What's more annoying that I couldn't find too many games in database. And many players play this variation during internet blitz and I don't know what to do...

THanks for your help!!

So I noticed a lot of talk in this thread about black declining the gambit with Nf6, which apparently is covered in this book. What about other ways of declining it? Does Esserman cover d5, d3, g6, etc instead of Nf6?

Also, I have the original edition of Langrock's Morra book, and I noticed references to a 2nd edition, which was apparently published during my 1.5 year break from chess. Is it worth the money to upgrade?

Dink Heckler wrote on 01/10/13 at 14:43:59:


I noticed that game in this week's TWIC.  Of course, the way Meijers played (starting on move 6) has been considered at least doubtful since forever.

tp2205 wrote on 10/28/12 at 06:27:17:


Not right now, but there almost every other line ends with something like 'this could be a continuation' and the first move for Black is awarded a question mark, while in the footnote to the move before that, it says, 'Black should have played' with equal chances.

One line I don't remember on top of my head was in the declined with ...Nf6, where White plays Qe2. Clearly Black's best option is not given in that line.

fling wrote on 10/27/12 at 21:32:10:


I had that feeling about Flesch's book. (Transpositions which were leading nowhere, missing moves for Black).

I don't have Langrock 2 and so far I have only looked at the Siberian wilderness and that chapter looks fine as far as I can tell. The 6 ... Nf6 move order seems to be ok for Black and that is clearly stated: 'the battle rages fierce'.

Of course Esserman's book is very much written from White's point of view.

Do you have any concrete variation where Black's best options are hidden?

Ah but that takes thought To be honest I just don't understand what black is trying to do with 8.. d5 and the subsequent play.

I can't work out why open the center at this point, or play Bxc3 unprovoked, or some of the rest. I am of course likely simply showing my ignorance in places (Bg4 x f3 seems an especially odd waste of time.).

The Grivas lines after 8.. o-o seem much more like the sort of thing black would normally be trying to do in this sort of set up.

So black leaves his king in center, opens up said center and happily gives away the bishop pair in the process without any clear reason?

Hardly a surprise when said bishops/rooks end up catching the king

I received my copy of the book just under a week ago.  To be honest, until recently I was never particularly enthusiastic about the Morra, but I've been having a lot of fun with it recently after learning about White's ways to liven up the play (rather than the stereotypical Qe2, Rd1 and put pressure on d6 etc).

As for the book, I find it very entertaining to read and certainly a good way to further enhance my recent enthusiasm for the line (particularly important is the fact that he offers some lines against 3...Nf6). 

Regarding the dubious comments re. manliness and women, for me he manages to get away with it because of the generally light-hearted tone of the book.  I generally find that sort of thing somewhat offensive if it is meant seriously, but just mildly uncomfortable otherwise- though I can understand others taking a different view.

Re. Esserman giving up the Morra, the Chesslive.de database doesn't have any games of his since 2011, suggesting that he may well have given up on competitive chess for the time being.

Bibs wrote on 09/29/12 at 11:47:49:

Off topic (but when was the last post discussing the Morra gambit?), but Black played a variation which has been refuted quite spectacularly (a double gambit) on this forum: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1292017017/46#46

For more gratuitous sexism, we present Adrian Mikhalchishin:

http://ankara2012.fide.com/en/component/content/article/1-news-en/182-game-of-th...

"Mens resigne is such situations,but girls can not do it for psyhological reasons <sic>. 35...Nxg6 36.Qxa1 Qg7 37.Bd4 Kh7 38.d7 Qe7 39.Bxe5 Nxe5 40.Qxe5 1–0"

Tw@t.
And to think he is a women's coach.

Different authors write in different ways. Are you asking that Esserman be like Moskalenko? Is Moskalenko the golden standard and I missed it? He's a fine author, but I see no reason each author needs to aspire to be like other chess authors.

Your point is all well and fine, and a reasonable criticism, but hoping the editors would've eliminated it altogether is just saddening.

And it is censorship if you agreed to write a text for a given publisher (that's how the contract works from my personal experience) and they decide to change the content of their own volition. With chess books you typically do not approach a publisher with an already finished product, you enter the contract before it is finished, meaning you don't really have the freedom to take it wherever you desire. Yes, the publisher gains the ability to censor if it desires, but that is why I expressed respect for publishers that don't.

I, frankly, care little for what people think is in good taste or not when it comes to writing. It's a matter of taste much like with music, hence why I find it no surprise some expressed support for his approach according to IM A. Greet.

I'm not against criticizing someone's writing, but I am vehemently opposed to the idea of limiting their creativity, even when it runs against the grain as is the case with Esserman.

As stated previously - if something rubs one the wrong way, then don't purchase future works by the author. Or just gloss over non-chess commentary and read it like you would ECO. Hell, even advise others not to buy the author's work, but going even remotely close to the censoring angle just sucks.

I don't get why people take their criticism so far as to almost want censorship of the author via the editor. It's like the goal is to either dehumanize the book, or make it fit the preferences of that individual reader.

I applaud a publisher that lets the author write as it reflects his personality. The more variety in authors the better, otherwise we just end up with a lot of very dry texts that might as well just be ECO with words.

fling wrote on 09/28/12 at 14:11:51:


The chess is good.  I think it would be a mistake not to buy it.

Saying that this is about style is avoiding the issue; which is the pointed content of much of this writing.  It's possible to write in a highly enthusiastic, voluble style and not engage in the nastiness that Esserman does is this work.  If all of this being allowed into print was really the result of your thinking that this was acceptable writing, and not, as I supposed, the result of a throwing up of hands in light of time and resource constraints, then I would question your taste.  Different people have different tastes, of course; I can only express my own. 

There appears to be no point in pursuing this discussion any further, so I don't think I will.  I value this book, just not the writing in it.

BPaulsen wrote on 09/28/12 at 00:51:35:

Another pearl of wisdom! I never would have thought of that myself.

The whining about discrimination has merit when it actually prevents someone from doing something they want.

Pointing out someone lost to a woman doesn't do that. As far as I'm concerned that can be filed under trivia like someone losing to a Mongolian for the first time.

Aside from that, I have a dry writing style. I appreciate authors that have flair, whether the individual judges that to be for better or worse. Wanting texts edited to conform to some hypothetical standard would just take part of the fun out of writing. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if more books got purchased as a result of the bad publicity.

If it really pisses someone off...don't buy future works by the author. Problem solved.

Whether the accusation is justified ot not, if the subject is some form of discrimination and the discussion grows longer the probability of an apologist using a variation of "don't whine" approaches 1.

IM Andrew Greet wrote on 09/26/12 at 15:48:41:

I'll decide that for myself, thank you.

Firstly, I should make it clear that I work at Quality Chess, and was involved with proofreading of the Morra book. But putting any company bias aside, I think some people are being MUCH too sensitive about this case of perceived sexism. The fact is that women still make up just a tiny minority of competitive chess players, and if it just so happens that a male player has remained undefeated against females for his career, then why shouldn't he remember that fact and mention it in conversation after a woman finally beats him?
It seems to me that, in order to judge whether the comment carried any negative connotations towards women, one would have had to actually be present and hear the tone in which it was said. None of us were in a position to do that, so I do find it strange that some people have automatically interpreted it in the worst possible way.

Markovich wrote on 08/09/12 at 01:26:07:



HOLY CRAP, you're right!  That gives me ideas...

I recently reviewed the book for my Youtube channel and gave it top marks.
The main reason for that is simply that I found it entertaining to read and full of great attacking chess. It's simply inspirational to see a book in the romantic attacking spirit, with few "positional" considerations. Sure, a "GM Repertoire" on for example  the g3,Rb1 Benko is the theoretically better material, but does it make you "reconsider" your chess? I for my part, after seeing some of the attacking lines in the book, thought about playing some sharper stuff in the future. It won't be the Morra, I don't even play 1.e4, but it raised the interest in sharpening my repertoire. On a side note: I played the Morra in Internet blitz on a decent level with very good results after looking at the book. Even titled players have no decent line prepared most of the time.

Btw, I am quite sure that this book contains mistakes, but that's true for all books. In fact usually it doesn't matter so much, as people simply don't know lines to the very end (see above about blitz games). I know that is not a "scientific" approach, but in reality some slight holes in variations don't matter very much, as even stronger players don't know them.

Why? Do I need to? Note I am not disagreeing nor commenting on the chess content nor the opinion of the majority here .......
I do read the reviews and views here before I purchase my chess books. Initially it looks like one of the books which fit one of my book-buying criterion: passion. But then ......
I have refrained from commenting until now, with the blog comment on QC blog which is not denied by the editor ......
so, back to my original question, do I need to buy the book to tell me it is sexist or that I was mistaken?

If anyone is interested in the typos, printing errors or editorial oversights, see http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=1309#comment-7121.
Also if anyone was intrigued as what was the sexist comment made by the author, at least one was revealed at the same blog comments. Not sure if there were others.
On my part, I am in two minds initially. It is the author who repeats the sexist attitude of the player but then is not QC repeating and reinforcing the same sexist attitude by publishing it? A possible defence is to say it is historical but I think by now everyone knows about these sexist attitudes if they desire to dig a bit (..... after did not one of the Polgar sisters comment that she did not hear of any male opponent who lost to her of not being afflicted with some form of malady), do we really need a 2012 publication to repeat something which smells like, looks like "shit".
Further support for some complicity on QC's part is revealed by the fact that QC acknowledges it edits to quite an extent the chessic material, including checking lines/variations et al. This is to say some lines are added and/or improved by the editors. Evidence? the famous case f the missing lines which has now turned up in the QC newsletter.
Surely, the same editorial zeal (which is applauded!) should also apply to non-chessic stuff. After all this is basic Inclusive Non-sexist Language Course 101.
I think QC in not taking a stand on this has tainted its name. Albeit at the same time they publish a seemingly great book by Judit Polgar. But then ...... (I cannot say more without being defamatory).
Finally two things: some will say, let's talk chess but unfortunately this is chess! when I am constantly trying to get more girls to play and persist with chess ......
Secondly, there goes my dream of publishing with QC ......

barnaby wrote on 08/03/12 at 14:43:30:


I agree on those little mistakes, there's also one in the introduction page on Chapter 2 where a6 is played but in fact where Be7 must be played (wrong diagram).

In your example, if you turn the page, the right moves are shown: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 a6 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Qe2 b5 9. Bb3 Nbd7 10. Rd1 or 10. Nd4.

Bibs wrote on 08/31/12 at 00:09:50:



Hi! I'm just interested is it Bc4 variation which was recommanded by Collins or "old" Bb5 line in setup where black plays d6.

Which line is recommanded in Alapin in this book?

I received the book, and I also find it rather grownbreaking. If you are under 2300 elo this is certainly an opening to be afraid of. If you accept it , that is. Also I think that Quality chess live up to their name by giving the "missing line(s)" so prompt in their (for free) newsletter. This book is a good buy, in my humble opinion.

Ben

Thanks.

The thought occurred to me that if you play 1.d4 c5, you have to be ready for 2.e4.

kylemeister wrote on 08/07/12 at 19:57:12:


I would appreciate your giving the sequence leading up to that.  Otherwise I'm lost.

TalJechin wrote on 08/07/12 at 11:22:27:

This will depend on the specifics of the contract between the author and the publisher, but if the writer is either a first-timer or not particularly high-profile, it's quite likely that the contract will permit the publisher to make any editorial changes deemed appropriate. I used to work in an editorial capacity myself where we, as publishers, could by and large make any alterations we felt were necessary. Even so, I would usually discuss any significant changes with the writer. This was a matter of courtesy rather than contractual necessity, but I was also mindful of the possibility that the writer might notice some ramification of the alteration that I hadn't fully taken into account. Given the specialised nature of the text in this case and the author's expertise in the Morra, I'm surprised Esserman wasn't asked about the revision as he may well have spotted the omission caused by the edit.

@Seely: The book is fine chess-wise. The rhetoric is quite obnoxious, at least to me, but you don't want to miss the chess if the Morra interests you.

Does he consider 3. ... Qa5!? ?
In my opinion black at least equalizes here (no I'm not joking!).

barnaby wrote on 08/03/12 at 14:43:30:


If you want to play the black side on page 153, then good luck !! I you have found so " countless other examples of this type of error." Please write to QualityChess.co.uk !

As usual, gambiteers are on the "Force side" ,others on the "Dark side".  But remember at the end who wins .... maybe the Smith-Morra Gambit is the choosen one ! 

Players of 3...Nf6 are repeatedly called "schemers." Give me a break. If you can play a perfectly fine chess move and win Esserman's condemnation, what good are any of his opinions? I sincerely hope that when he attempts the Morra in future, he encounters nothing but 3...Nf6. That includes his time in Hell.

urusov wrote on 08/03/12 at 19:24:25:


Disagree (respectfully) and feel his "manly" comments are sexist and out of line.  I have been playing gambits for 20+ years and genitalia has nothing to do with how and what line a person plays.

There are many female players that would and do take umbrage at these type of comments.

Substitute some racial comment or attribute for "manliness" and it would be clear how inappropriate these types of comments really are in today's world.

Page 245. Chapter called: Searching the Stars for a Refutation.

His main lines runs:

1. e4 c5 3. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 a6 7. 0-0 e6 8. Qe2 b5 9 Rd1 b5

This is one of several examples where moves are repeated.

Page 153 in Chapter Slaying the Dragon, he states after move
22, g5 that " Soon, white's queen and knight will put the black king out of his misery"  and gives the position as +/- when this is simply no the case at all.   Black can hold.

There are countless other examples of this type of error.

I want to be clear that I like the book, and even like the Morra gambit, but feel the publisher rushed their effort and that these types of mistakes are not the typical effort from Quality chess to which I have become accustomed and feel it is not up to their usually excellent standards.

As for the author's attitude, I think that is too much an opinion and while I find it uncalled for some other people may like it.  But these types of move repeating errors are not subjective opinions and in books to day that cost upwards of $30, they are inexcusable.

Agree here with Markovich and found too much arrogance from the IM author when none is required.

In addition, there are several serious flaws (black making same move twice--playing e6 & b5 two times in the first 9 moves!  Publisher error most likely).  I am also not so sure about some of his +/- claims or the claims black will be checkmated when it is clear that a position is closer to = and an adequate defense is available.

I think this is one of the weaker efforts by Quality Chess and seems as if it were rushed but still found it interesting.

MNb wrote on 07/31/12 at 14:50:35:


It was my perception that the "Taylor" was established as a significant independent line, and indeed a threat to the viability of the Morra, by the game Kenneth Smith-Larry Evans, San Antonio 1972 (Mecking also played it against Smith in that event).  Flesch mentioned the Evans game, with some verbiage about how obviously White could play better and careful analysis was needed.  The book led one reviewer (a US master) to refer to Flesch as a "snake-oil salesman"; some years later GM Drazen Marovic contented himself with describing the book as "optimistically written."

Michel Barbaut wrote on 07/31/12 at 11:18:14:


Indeed he had a chapter on 6...a6, but in the most critical line he claimed a transposition to another line/chapter, which wasn't actually the case.  It was quite egregious really. 

kylemeister wrote on 07/31/12 at 02:44:08:


Not too much ignore since there is a chapter in Flesch's Morra book , in the introducdtion he said " "The 6...a6 line is therefore an interesting highlight in the theory of the Morra gambit"  ... 

PatzerKing wrote on 07/30/12 at 20:47:08:


Excellent post, and I agree with your observations and conclusions 100%. I would just add that although 2...Nf6 offers objective equality for Black, to my mind the key positions are all easier to play for White. Moreover from a practical point of view, not all Sicilian players prefer the 2...Nf6 line against the Alapin, and against such players the Morra could be a useful move-order tool in one's armoury, provided of course one knows how to handle the gambit accepted as White. Indeed as a Sicilian player myself I must confess that despite its exalted theoretical reputation, the lines springing from 2...Nf6 as Black never quite appealed to me, since in most lines it's White who enjoyed the initiative albeit in balanced positions.

PatzerKing wrote on 07/30/12 at 20:47:08:


Not a stupid question at all, and it should have been covered somewhere in those two scheveningen chapters, but somehow it wasn't. The closest that Esserman comes to examining positions akin to the Eliskases-Variation is in the game Esserman vs Thomas Bartell pg 68, which went:

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3 dc 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 e6 7. 0-0 Be7 8. Qe2 Nf6 9.Rd1 e5 10.Be3 0-0 11.Rac1 Bd7!?, Curiously Esserman now comments: "An odd development for the bishop, which I had never seen before at this juncture, nor since."

However for Esserman to employ his favorite setup against the Eliskases proper he will have to lose a tempo on the Bartel game, which may or may not prove significant:

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3 dc 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 e6 7. 0-0 Be7 8. Qe2 a6! 9. Rd1 Bd7 and now What? If we follow Esserman's methodology I would expect the following to happen 10.Bf4 e5 (Winning the tempo I mentioned) 11.Be3 Nf6 12.Rac1 0-0 reaching more or less the same position as in the Bartel game except with the extra move 8...a6 thrown in for free, considering that Bartel plays a6 a few moves later in his game we begin to see the point of the Eliskases subtle move order.

Topster