MNb wrote on 07/23/07 at 23:39:11:

I looked up my stats overnight. I had the position after 5...Nc6 in nine games, scoring +7=1-1. Two of the wins and the draw were against much stronger players. I played 6.c3, 6.0-0 and once 6.Bg5. On the other hand, if you look at the position in Mega Database 2007, you'll find White scores abysmally, albeit there are just 17 games and there appear to be no strong players involved and most people seem to reach the position somewhat randomly, as indicated by the most popular move, 6.h3 (not the way to play a Morra, delayed or otherwise!).
I suspect my success was due to a) deliberately playing a delayed Morra as opposed to reaching the position almost by random, b) most Blacks prepare just one line against the Morra - delaying the gambit often takes them away from their prepared line.
I reckon the Delayed Morra is a good surprise weapon but I wouldn't fancy playing it against a prepared titled (FM+) player

TopNotch wrote on 07/21/07 at 10:37:53:

I used to play a delayed Morra as above but with 4.Bc4 (c3 to come later). Then 4...Nf6 can be met by 5.Qe2

By the way, can`t white reduce black`s options by using the move-order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.c3 instead of the normal 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd 3.c3 dc 4.Nxc3 and now black can play a6, d6, e6, g6, etc. whereas in the former he is already committed to d6?

Quote:


The Morra-smith gambit is quite dangerous, and has been used by some very strong players such as GM Adams in the British Championships.  I have written a technical article about it which can be found here:-

http://www.insight.demon.co.uk/Technical_Articles/beatingsicillian/sicillian_bea...

If you want to see how a top correspondence chess grandmaster played against it in a recent game, look at the following line adopted by ICCF GM Peter Coleman:-

[Event "www.ChessWorld.net server game"]
[Site "www.ChessWorld.net "]
[Date "2004.3.8"]
[Round "NA"]
[White "Mulleady, Peter"]
[Black "ICCF GM Peter Coleman"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Termination "Draw agreed"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "2160"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[DateLastMove "2005.1.22"]
[ECO "B21"]
[Board "510656"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nb1xc3 Nb8c6 5. Ng1f3 d6 6. Bf1c4 a6 7. O-O Ng8f6 8. Bc1g5 e6 9. Qd1e2 h6 10. Bg5f4 g5 11. Bf4e3 Nf6g4 12. Be3d2 b5 13. Bc4b3 Bf8g7 14. Rf1d1 Qd8e7 15. Ra1c1 Bc8d7 16. Nf3xg5 hxg5 17. Qe2xg4 Bg7f6 18. Bd2e3 Nc6a5 19. h3 Bd7c6 20. Qg4g3 Bf6e5 21. Qg3g4 b4 22. Nc3a4 Rh8h4 23. Be3xg5 Rh4xg4 24. Bg5xe7 Rg4xg2 25. Kg1xg2 Ke8xe7 26. f3 Ra8g8 27. Kg2f2 Rg8h8 28. Na4b6 Be5xb2 29. Rc1c2 Bb2c3 30. Kf2g3 Bc6b5 31. h4 Na5b7 32. Nb6a4 Bb5xa4 33. Bb3xa4 Nb7c5 34. Ba4b3 a5 35. Rd1h1 a4 36. Bb3c4 f5 37. exf5 d5 38. Bc4e2 exf5 39. h5 Rh8g8 40. Kg3f2 Bc3d4 41. Kf2e1 Rg8c8 42. h6 b3 43. axb3 axb3 44. Rc2xc5 Rc8xc5 45. Ke1d2 b2 46. h7 Bd4c3 47. Kd2c2 f4 48. Be2d3 Bc3h8 49. Kc2d2 Rc5c3 50. Rh1b1 Ke7d6 51. Rb1g1 Kd6c5 52. Rg1b1 Rc3a3 53. Rb1d1 Kc5d4 54. Bd3b1 Kd4c4 55. Rd1f1 Bh8c3 56. Kd2e2 Ra3a7 57. Rf1h1 Ra7e7 58. Ke2d1 Re7e8 59. Rh1g1  {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

Best wishes
Tryfon

I have heard that there is a really good way to play against the S-M:  e4 c5 d4 cd c3 dc nc3 e6 bc4 a6 qe2 b5 bb3 bb7, followed by developing queens knight to d7; all this in Najdor fashion. Could this--COULD THIS--be the black line ALL OF US SICILIANS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR? Please elaborate further. Tanks.   

In Nepustil-Geissler the idea 14.g4 is remarkable - Black has difficulties completing his development. Maybe he must try 13...Bd7.

12...Qb8 13.e5 Nh5 14.Bg5 dxe5 15.Bxe7 Nxe7 16.Nxe5 Nf4
After 16...Nf6 17.Bc2 b5 18.g4 h6 I am curious, if RE wants to continue with 19.h4 ?

17.Qe3
Indeed better than 17.Qe4, but not a novelty. The honour goes to the game Starck-Hobusch, DDRch Plauen 1980. The game ended in a draw; 20.Nb6 seems to be an improvement. My first glance tells me, that Black still has difficulties in the endgame.
MGteers should investigate RE's ideas seriously, as they contain an interesting try to establish an advantage in a line that is considered safe for Black.

In 1992 Andrew Martin in his booklet Trends in the Smith-Morra Gambit gives the corr. game Belenko-Rivlin, in which White played the line until 15.Nce4. Now Martin gives 15...o-o 16.g3 but after Nd4! I think Black is better.

As the winner himself apparently is too modest to publish this game, I will do it for him:

Hague,B (2264) - Plaskett,J (2490) [B21]
4NCL Nottingham ENG (6), 23.01.2005
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Pxc3 Pc6 5.Pf3 e6 6.Lc4 d6 7.0-0 Pf6 8.De2 Dc7 9.Td1 Le7 10.Lf4 a6 11.e5 Ph5 12.Lg5 dxe5 13.Lxe7 Pf4 14.De4 Kxe7 15.g3 Pg6 16.h4 f5 17.De3 e4 18.Dc5+ Ke8 19.Pd4 De5 20.Db6 Pge7 21.Pce2 Kf7 22.f4 Da5 23.Db3 Pd8 24.Tac1 Te8 25.Kh2 Pec6 26.g4 Pxd4 27.Pxd4 Kf8 28.gxf5 exf5 29.Lg8 h6 30.Lh7 Ke7 31.Txc8 Txc8 32.Pxf5+ Kf6 33.Dg3 Dxf5 34.Lxf5 Kxf5 35.Dh3+ Kf6 36.Dxc8 e3 37.Txd8 1-0

Congratulations. Played according Rolf Schwarz' advice: "Machen Sie Ihre Gegner opfernd mundtot!" Still I wonder, how Ben would have continued after 12...Bxg5.

The variant which showed Chessy me partial, but it sems, that approach to advantage White exists. Like always about Morra gambit is possible to say: It is difficult but it is possible (incidentally I receive that my English is terrible)

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Bc4 Bc5 6.Nf3 Ne7 7.e5 Ng6 [7...0-0 8.Ne4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Nbc6 10.0-0 d5 11.exd6 Bxd6 12.Bg5 Bc7 13.Qe2|^;  7...d5 8.exd6 Bxd6 (8...Qxd6 9.Qxd6 Bxd6 10.Nb5|^) 9.Nb5|^] 8.Ne4 Nc6 (chessy var.)  [8...Bb4+ 9.Bd2|^] 9.0-0! [9.Nxc5?! Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qxc5-/+] 9...Be7 [9...Qb6 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.exd6 Nce5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Bb3 0-0 14.Be3 Qb4 15.Qh5 Ng4 16.Qh4->] 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.exd6 0-0 12.b3|^
 
Rajmund

Thanks for your response. But I still think the position after

1. e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 Bc5 6.Bc4 Ne7 6.Bc4 Ne7 7.e5 Ng6 8.Ne4 Nc6

is ok for black 

I agree that the image of  early Bc5 and Ne7 is not good. I thought because of the above mentioned line (am I wrong?) but I do not agree to that assessment.

eg. 9.)Nxc5 Qa5+ 10.)Bd2 Qxc5 and it is hard for white to protect e5 pawn

According to me the best for white is 9. 0-0 Be7 10. Nd6 Bxd6 exd6 and the black position is a little bit cramped but is this enough for the pawn? I think black can castle and then probably play b6. To me this seem acceptable for black.

However I am open to learn....

sorry 8. ...Nc6  (not in the 6th move)

Thank you everyone for great replies to my initial posting, it has been helpful. I have been away for some months, which is the reason I have not replied. I must admit that I have not had a serious look at every line you recommend, as I was attracted to AmateurD. initial reply, where he outlined the plan of an early a6 and b5, then e6,d6 and putting the knight on d7, queen on b8. It seems, however,  logical to me to complete development fully first, before considering Nf6. My idea is to play Be7 before Nf6, as white just seems to be waiting for Nf6 (e5). 

Black`s setup seems good to me, at least against white`s standard plan of Qe2 and rooks on d1 and c1. White does not seem to be given any weak squares to work on and the Black setup is quite simple.

Unless white comes up with some ideas here, I will be attracted to this line

{And thank you Topnotch, for your informative posting.  "Bailing out" with Nf6 is not an option for me when I am given the chance to win.   }

Usually, when Black plays an early e6-e5, White has sufficient compensation due to the strong d5 square and the backward d6 pawn. This does not mean that White is better, of course.
As The Sicilian is an ambitious counter attacking defence indeed, Black might want something else. My recommendations as an ex Morra player:
A) a6, d6, e6, Nge7 setup.
B) Dragon setup.
Of course these are more risky than the several e6-e5 systems, but they also offer better chances to take over the initiative.

I gave six sample games, and it would have been nice to know 12.Rd2 in which one

Be that as it may, and should this 12.Rd2 really prove to  lead to a draw, I hardly consider that a tragedy for black.

Top

Ohh dear what is Klick (U know?, the guy that started this post) to make of all this confusion, he asked a simple question and must now be more confused than ever. Tsk, tsk.  

Klick, to make a long story short, the books have always considered the Smith Morra to be dubious, and various books have reccommended various different 'Refutations'. Now here is the stunner, despite what any of the books say, and despite its poor theoretical status, if you choose to accept this gambit and hang on to it you will have to defend well and be alert to haul in the full point.

My personal feeling is that the Smith Morra is junk, but that is my bias. Defending against this gambit successfully in practice below master level is by no means a trivial matter, and since it is not seen very often at Master level the would be defender has no reliable point of reference to emulate.

The e z thing to reccommend is to bail out with 3...Nf6, transposing to the Alapin, but this reply may not suit those who do not have 3...Nf6 in their Repertoire against the Alapin. Before continuing, I think it needs to be said that the Sicilian is a fearless complex counter attacking system, and if the prospect of facing the Morra is so terrifying then perhaps one should not consider playing the Sicilian at all. Virtually all the mainlines of the Sicilian are a labyrinth of almost unfathomable complications, the best one can do is take a deep breath and plunge right in. Eventually the tactical themes and typical play will begin to be assimilated as u play and gain more experience with your chosen system.

Research my posts, as somewhere on this forum I outlined in detail a study plan on how to come to grips with the Sicilian in a systematic and painless way. If u can't find it lemme know.

Now, if you must accept this gambit I think that the line that IM Jeremy Silman advocates is a very good one. I do not claim that it's any better or worse than other accepted lines of the Smith Morra, but its easy to play and very reliale: 

[Event "Mar del Plata"]
[Site "Mar del Plata"]
[Date "1962.??.??"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Parma,Bruno"]
[Black "Eliskases,Erich Gottlieb"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 d6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 
9.Rd1 Bd7 10.Bf4 e5 11.Be3 Nf6 12.h3 0-0 13.Rac1 Rc8 14.Bd5 b5 15.a3 Na5 16.Nd2 Be6 
17.b4 Nc6 18.Nb3 Qd7 19.Rc2 Bd8 20.Qd3 Ne7 21.Bxe6 Qxe6 22.Nd2 Rc6 23.Rdc1 Bb6 24.Bxb6 Rxb6 
25.Nf1 d5 26.exd5 Nfxd5 27.Nxd5 Nxd5 28.Rc5 Nf4 29.Qf3 Rd6 30.Rd1 Rxd1 31.Qxd1 f5 32.Kh2 e4 
33.Qd4 Nd3 34.Rc7 Qe5+ 35.Qxe5 Nxe5 36.Ne3 f4 37.Nd5 Nc4 38.Re7 Rf5 39.Nc3 e3 40.fxe3 fxe3 
41.Nd1 Kf8 42.Re4 Nxa3 43.Nxe3 Rf7 44.Rd4 Ra7 45.Rd3 Nc4 46.Nxc4 bxc4 47.Rd8+ Ke7 48.Rc8 a5 
49.bxa5 Rxa5 50.Rxc4  1/2

[Event "SLO-ch sf"]
[Site "Slovenia"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Pinter,Andrej"]
[Black "Podlesnik,Bogdan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0-0 d6 8.Qe2 Be7 
9.Rd1 Bd7 10.Bf4 e5 11.Be3 Nf6 12.h3 0-0 13.b4 Nxb4 14.Rab1 b5 15.Rxb4 d5 16.Bxd5 Bxb4 
17.Bxa8 Qxa8 18.Nd5 Nxd5 19.exd5 Bd6 20.Ng5 Bf5 21.Qf3 Bg6 22.h4 h6 23.h5 Bxh5 24.Qxh5 hxg5 
25.Bxg5 f6 26.Bh6 Qb7 27.Qg4 f5 28.Qg6 Rf6 29.Qe8+ Kh7 30.Bg5 Qf7 31.Qd8 Be7 32.Qd7 Qh5 
33.Rd3 Qxg5 34.Qxe7 Qc1+ 35.Kh2 Qf4+ 36.Kg1 Rh6 37.Rh3 Qc1+ 38.Kh2 Rxh3+ 39.gxh3 Qe1 40.Qh4+ Kg6 
41.d6 Qd2 42.Qe7 Qxf2+ 43.Kh1 Qe1+ 44.Kh2 Qd2+ 45.Kh1 Qc1+ 46.Kg2 Qc2+ 47.Kh1 Qb1+ 48.Kh2 Qxa2+ 
49.Kg1 Qb1+ 50.Kh2 Qc2+ 51.Kh1 Qc1+ 52.Kh2 Qf4+ 53.Kg2 Qd2+ 54.Kh1 Qe1+ 55.Kh2 Qf2+ 56.Kh1 Qf1+ 
57.Kh2 Qe2+ 58.Kh1 Qd1+ 59.Kh2 Qc2+ 60.Kh1 Qb1+ 61.Kg2 Qb2+ 62.Kh1 Qa1+ 63.Kg2 Qa2+ 64.Kg1 Qa1+ 
65.Kh2 Qb2+ 66.Kg1 Qc1+ 67.Kh2 Qd2+ 68.Kg1 Qe1+ 69.Kh2 Qe2+ 70.Kh1 f4 71.d7 Qe1+ 72.Kh2 Qg3+ 
73.Kh1 Qxh3+ 74.Kg1 f3 75.Qd6+ Kh7 76.Qd2 Qg3+ 77.Kf1 f2 78.Qxf2 Qh3+ 79.Ke1 Qxd7 80.Qh2+ Kg6 
81.Qxe5 a5 82.Qe4+ Kf6 83.Qh4+ g5 84.Qh6+ Kf5 85.Qh3+ g4 86.Qh5+ Ke4 87.Qg6+ Kd4 88.Qb6+ Kd3 
89.Qg6+ Kc3 90.Qf6+ Qd4 91.Qc6+ Qc4 92.Qf6+ Kb3 93.Qd8 Qe4+ 94.Kd2 a4 95.Qg8+ Qc4 96.Qg5 Qd4+ 
97.Ke1 a3 98.Kf1 Qc4+ 99.Kg1 a2 100.Qe3+ Kb2 101.Qd2+ Kb1 0-1

[Event "IECC"]
[Site "IECC email"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Camper,Donald Lynn"]
[Black "Bliznyuk,Andrey"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 d6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nf3 a6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 Nc6 
9.Rd1 Bd7 10.Bf4 e5 11.Be3 Nf6 12.h3 0-0 13.g4 Be6 14.Bd5 Bxd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Rxd5 Rc8 
17.a3 b5 18.Rad1 Qc7 19.b4 Rfe8 20.Nh2 Nb8 21.Nf1 Nd7 22.Ng3 g6 23.g5 Qb7 24.R5d3 Rc4 
25.h4 Rec8 26.h5 Rc3 27.Qg4 Rxd3 28.Rxd3 Rc4 29.hxg6 hxg6 30.Bd2 Bf8 31.Qf3 Nb6 32.Be3 Na8 
33.Bd2 Nc7 34.Be3 Ne6 35.Qd1 Qc6 36.Qg4 Rc3 37.Qd1 Be7 38.Ne2 Rxd3 39.Qxd3 Bxg5 40.Bxg5 Nxg5 
41.Nc3 Ne6 42.Nd5 Qc1+ 43.Kg2 Kg7 44.Qf3 Qg5+ 45.Kf1 Nd4 46.Qg3 Qxg3 47.fxg3 Ne6 48.Kf2 Kh6 
49.Nf6 Nc7 50.Kf3 Kg7 51.Nd7 f6 52.g4 Kf7 53.Nb6 Ke6 54.a4 d5 55.axb5 axb5 56.Nc8 dxe4+ 
57.Kxe4 f5+ 58.gxf5+ gxf5+ 59.Kd3  0-1

[Event "Prokojevsk2"]
[Site "Prokojevsk"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Yankin,Vadim"]
[Black "Isupov,Vladimir"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Qe2 Be7 8.0-0 a6 
9.Rd1 Bd7 10.Bf4 e5 11.Be3 Nf6 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 0-0 14.h3 Rc8 15.Nd2 Nb4 16.Bxb7 Bb5 
17.Qg4 Rb8 18.Bh6 Bf6 19.Bd5 Nc2 20.Rac1 Nd4 21.Bc4 Bd7 22.Qg3 Rxb2 23.Nb3 Be6 24.Nxd4 exd4 
25.Bxa6 Rxa2 26.Bd3 Qa5 27.h4 Kh8 28.Bg5 Be5 29.f4 Bf6 30.Bxf6 gxf6 31.Bf1 Rg8 32.Qd3 Qh5 
33.f5 Qxh4 34.fxe6 Qf2+ 35.Kh1 Rxg2 36.Rc8+ Kg7 0-1

[Event "Oz.com qual blitz"]
[Site "Internet ICC"]
[Date "2000.03.05"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Al Sayed,Mohammed"]
[Black "Zaremba,Andrie"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 
9.Rd1 Bd7 10.Bf4 e5 11.Bg3 Nf6 12.Bh4 Bg4 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Qe3 Nd4 15.Be2 Nc2 16.Qd2 Nxa1 
17.Rxa1 0-0 18.Nd5 Be6 19.Bc4 Bxd5 20.Bxd5 Qb6 21.g4 Rac8 22.g5 Be7 23.h4 Kh8 24.Kg2 f5 
25.gxf6 Bxf6 26.Ng5 Bxg5 27.hxg5 Qd4 28.Qe2 g6 29.Rd1 Qb6 30.Rd3 Rc5 31.a3 Qd8 32.Qg4 Rc2 
33.Rf3 Kg7 34.b4 Rxf3 35.Kxf3 Qf8+ 0-1

[Event "Cvitanovic mem"]
[Site "Split"]
[Date "2004.05.01"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Zelic,Mladen"]
[Black "Pataki,Gyozo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 d6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 
9.Rd1 Bd7 10.Bf4 e5 11.Be3 Nf6 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 0-0 14.b4 Nxb4 15.Bxb7 Bb5 16.Qd2 Rb8 
17.Qxb4 Rxb7 18.a4 a5 19.Qb3 Bc6 20.Qc4 Bd7 21.Bd2 Qa8 22.Rdc1 Be6 23.Qc3 Ra7 24.Qd3 f6 
25.Rab1 d5 26.exd5 Bxd5 27.Rb5 Rd8 28.Nh4 Bf7 29.Qe2 Ba3 30.Rcb1 Rc8 31.Be3 Rac7 32.Qg4 Rc4 
33.Qh3 Qc6 0-1

The main theme of the above system is to delay the development of Nf6 until the appropriate moment. The moves e6, d6, a6, Bd7 and in particular Be7 are all played prior to Nf6 so as to minimise the impact of an eventual Bg5 and in many cases if white does get this move in, it is usually at the cost of at least two tempi. Some of the games listed above do not make full use of Black's most precise move order, nevertheless they give some indication as to what to expect in this line.

I would recommend you source a copy of Silman's book 'Winning With the Sicilian Defence' revised 2nd edition, therein he explains in great detail the ins and outs of the above system.

Adios

Top   

I'd be very interested in seeing more on this, Craig -- on 2 c3 Qa5 and in particular 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Qa5, as well as 3 ...Qa5 against the Morra!

This is a little off the discussion so far, but I thought it may be worth noting...

Against the 2.c3 sicilian, some adventurous souls have been experimenting with 2...Qa5, the point of which is to prevent 3.d4. So, if people want a good way of declining the morra, surely 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Qa5 could be considered? I never see this mentioned or talked about, and I wonder why, if 2...Qa5 is a valid response to 2.c3 (and to my knowledge there's no direct refutation of it, Csom seems to have had plenty of success with it). 

In my database (or, to be strictly accurate, chessbase's database  ), black is scoring over 50% in this line, and I quite like black's position...

Does have anything to say? I can try to get some concrete lines up if people wish, I've not read any recent sicilian/morra books so I don't know if it's been mentioned anywhere, but in my limited collection of sicilian books (the most recent of any relevance is Chandler's 2.c3 book) there is no mention of the position - if someone has read some material on it, maybe they could post it? If nothing is said though, and if there's any interest, I'll wade through relevant games and quickly try to create some sort of "main line" for people to examine.

Regards, 
Craig 

Indeed, but it has some beautiful variations in it - and as a young gambiteer that was good enough for me.  It was my favourite book for a long, long time!

I once won a very pretty game against one of the earlier Fritz programmes (5.32, I think) in the Morra - I'll see if I can root that out because I think that was in the ...g6 line - but obviously it was a few years back, as the prospect of my (a) playing the Morra and (b) beating one of the more recent additions to the Fritz family are remote!

Well, the old Flesch book on the Morra has a low opinion of the ...g6 defence (but then dear old Janos had most lines leading to a win for White in that gorgeously decadent book).  I seem to remember that the more recent Palkovi book is somewhat more balanced.  I will try to find my copy and root out some variations for you at some point.  Watch this space!

Craig, your sequence moves (16.-19.) is OK, but it seems somewhat short to me. As I see it, that in forum isn't for detailed analyses enough area, but then it be about risk, that our conclusions (feeling) will not be real. I'd disagre therewith, that "black should have no problem hanging on here". Black king is immured in the centre and white can intensify a pressure after 20.Rd4! etc. with advantage and nor other ways black in 17. move there're not better. 8)

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0–0 Nge7 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 Ng6 10.Bb3! b5 11.Nd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Bb7 13.Rfd1 Be7 14.f4 Rc8 15.f5 exf5 16.exf5 Bc5 (the move nominated by Craig) 17.Qd2 Ne5  
·      [17...Ne7 18.Rac1 Nxf5 19.Bxc5 Rxc5 20.Nd5 Rxc1 21.Rxc1 Bc6 22.Re1+ Kf8 23.Rf1±;
·      17...Qe7 18.Re1 Ne5 19.Kh1 Qd6 20.Qe2 Bxe3 21.Qxe3 Qc5 22.Qg3 Kf8 23.Rad1 Re8 24.Nd5 a5 25.Qh4 Bxd5 26.Rxd5 Qb6 27.Qh5 Re7 28.Rc1 Nc6 (28...Nc4 29.Qd1±) 29.Qd1±] 
18.Bxc5 Rxc5 19.Qe3 Qb6 20.Rd4! Rc8 [20...Kf8 21.Rad1 Rc8 22.Kh1 etc.; 20...Rc7 21.Rad1 a5 22.a3 Kf8 23.Kh1±] 21.Rad1 Kf8 [21...b4 22.Nd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5 a5 24.Kh1 g5 25.Bb3 Kf8 26.Qe4 Re8 27.Rd6±] 22.Kh1 a5 [22...b4 23.Ne4 d5 24.Ng5 fxg5 25.Qxe5±] 23.Qe2 a4 24.Bd5 Bc6 25.Ne4± 
Regards,
Rajmund

Where's problem in terms to the Bernhards intent?   He assume, that of mine initiate variant 10.Bb3 b5 11.Nd4 leds to 11...Nxd4 (trough a different move order) only to above-mentioned (in the same way strong) variant. It is true, but only in part. In my opinion the move 10.Nd4 (presentation Ben Hague, Bernard, MNb) isn't universal, Black has a possibility of equalization after 10...Bb4!? The similary idea of Black - after filling 10.Bb3! b5 - would but already have not such force (11.Nd4 Bb4 12.Nxc6 etc. see below).

a short recap:
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 Ng6 10.Bb3!
 
8)[10.Nd4 Bb4! (10...Nxd4 11.Qxd4! (11.Bxd4?! Bd6!) ) 11.Rc1 (11.Bb3 Na5 12.f4 Nxb3 13.axb3 0-0 14.Qh5 Ne7 15.Rf3 Qe8 16.Qxe8 Rxe8 17.Ndb5 d5!?N (17...Rf8 18.Nc7 Rb8 19.Ba7± (Palkovi)) 18.Nc7 Bd7÷) 11...Na5=] 8)
 
10...b5 [10...Na5 11.Rc1 Nxb3 12.Qxb3 b5 13.Rfd1 Bb7 (13...Be7 14.Nd4 Qa5 15.Nd5 Bd8 16.a3 Qa4±) 14.Na4 Bxe4 15.Nb6 Bxf3 16.gxf3 d5 17.Rc6 Kf7 18.Rxe6 Kxe6 19.Rxd5+-]
 
11.Nd4  
A) [11...Nxd4 12.Qxd4! (better then 12.Bxd4) (12.Bxd4 Bd6!(Bernhard, MNb) 12...Bb7 (12...Ne5 13.f4! Ng4 14.Kh1 Nxe3 15.Qxe3 Be7 16.Rfd1 Qa5 17.Qg3 0-0 18.Nd5 Bc5 19.Rac1 b4 20.f5±) 13.Rfd1 Be7 (13...Ne5 14.Rac1 Rc8 15.Qa7 Bc6 16.Ne2 Ra8 17.Qd4 Be7 18.f4 Ng4 19.Qd3 Rc8 20.Bd4 Nh6 21.f5 exf5 22.Qg3 (22.exf5±) 22...Kf8 23.e5 Nf7 24.exf6 Bxf6 25.Bc5+ Kg8 26.Rd6 a5 27.Bxf7+ Kxf7 28.Qb3+ Ke8 29.Nc3 Be7 30.Re1 Be4 31.Bb6+-) 14.f4 Rc8 15.f5 exf5 16.exf5 Ne5 17.Re1 Bc5 18.Qd2 Qb6 19.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 20.Kh1 Kf8 21.Ne4 Bxe4 22.Rxe4 a5 23.Ree1±)  
B) 11...Bb7 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.f4 b4 (13...Qc7 14.Rc1 Bd6 15.Nd5 exd5 16.exd5 Nxf4 17.dxc6 dxc6 18.Qf3 Ng6 19.Rxc6 Ne5 20.Qh5+ g6 21.Qh4+-) 14.Nd5 exd5 [14...Qa5 15.Re1 Bc5 16.f5 Ne5 17.fxe6 dxe6 18.Qh5+ Kf8 19.Nf4 Bxe3+ 20.Rxe3 Bd7 21.Ng6+ Kg8 22.Nxe5 Qxe5 23.Qxe5 fxe5 24.Rd1+-] 15.exd5 Bb7 16.Re1+- 
C) 11...Bb4 12.Nxc6! (12.a4!?; 12.Rc1!?) 12...dxc6 13.Qh5 0-0 14.Rad1 Qe7 15.Ne2 Bd7 16.f4 Rfd8 17.e5 Bc5 18.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 19.Kh1 Kh8 (19...Nf8 20.Rc1 Qe7 21.exf6 Qxf6 22.f5±) 20.Ng3 f5 21.Rd6 Nxf4 22.Qf7±]
???
The move 10.Bb3 proves me as show the best, contributing (though with difficulties) to advantage white, while after move 10.Nd4 - I hope not. It correspond (mine) ED-theory, according hold true, that advantage white keeps one and only move.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings!§!.  

It be uprising ugly (black?) heads? But on any new heads has White one sharp sword.   ;) 
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 a6 7. O-O Nge7 8.Bg5 f6 9. Be3 Ng6  10.Bb3 N! (10. Nd4 ?!(By Palkovi too. This move but isn't best.) 10... b5 (10... Na5 11. Rc1 Nxb3 12. Qxb3 b5 13. Rfd1 Bb7 (13... Be7 14. Nd4 Qa5 15. Nd5 Bd8 16. a3 Qa4 17.Qa2+/-) 14. Na4 Bxe4 15. Nb6 Bxf3 16. gxf3 d5 17. Rc6 Kf7 18. Rxe6 Kxe6 19. Rxd5 + -) 11. Nd4 Bb7 12. Nxc6 Bxc6 13. f4 b4 (13... Qc7 14. Rc1 Bd6 15. Nd5 exd5 16. exd5
Nxf4 17. dxc6 dxc6 18. Qf3 Ng6 19. Rxc6 Ne5 20. Qh5+ g6 21. Qh4 + -) 14. Nd5 exd5 (14... Qa5 15. Re1 Bc5 16. f5 ->) 15. exd5 Bb7 16. Re1+ - Morra lives !

In the line given by Ben Hague,
how can White improve on the game Zelic-Stohl,
which went 10...Nd4 11.Bd4 b5 12.Bb3 Bd6!.
This is the critical position. What is White best move now?
Bernhard

According to Michael Jensen, White also faces problems if Black plays the a6, d6, e6, Nc6, Nge7 setup. The big problem for Black of course is that he has to play very accurately indeed. Otherwise White will crush him. But if Black does, he should be fine.
Any Black player who does not want to spend much time studying, might decline with 3...Nf6 of course.

I played the morra some years ago and as far as i rember the kingside-fiancetto was a weak line because white could play an early e5, simply sacrificing the pawn in order to attack.

I have played the Morra Gambit for more than a decade, but abandoned it when
opponents on my moderate level (ELO 1800) started to outprepare me. The basic problem
with the Morra is that Black really has a wide choice, while White has a very predictable
setup. So my advice is to buy a book on this opening and try to find some holes.
For instance, I have always wondered if 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 g6 (might be
more precise than Nc6 5.Nf3 g6 6.h4!?) 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.e5 Qa5 8.o-o Nxe5 9.Nxe5
Bxe5 10.Re1 d6 11.Bb5+ Kf8 and 10.Nd5 e6 11.Re1 d6 12.Bb5+ Kf8 are that strong for
White? Best might be 10.Nb5!?
At the other hand I think Black should avoid e6-e5 as White gets lasting compenstion due
to the weaknesses on d5 and d6.

The more I think about all this, the more I think it just makes no sense to play this way.  I used to notch up point after point with the Morra as White, irrespective of what set-up Black tried.

It is a psychological thing - Black was always trying to weather the storm and would forget to do anything active.  this just allowed white to build up long-term pressure - which for me is what the Morra is all about, for all the pretty tactical shots if Black goes wrong early on.

My advice - forget about fiddling around like this - just play 3...Nf6 and transpose to the 2.c3 lines.  These are fine for Black.  Check out the lines given by Rogozenko in his recent book - especially the ones where black plays ... Nf6-d5, ...e6, ...d6 then ...Bd7-c6.

Bob Ciaffone wrote a book on a line in the Smith-Morra that he called the Finegold Defense where he suggests a Najdorf setup similar to ones suggested in post (but using a different move order).  (Ben Finegold analyzed the line with him.)  If Black can keep his pawn without comprimising his structure in this way, White seems busted.  When analysing the lines in this book, I could n't find any promising ideas for white.  The coverage is this book is thorough (and wordy), but it is hard to come by, since I think it was published independently by the author.      

The line given by Seb has been played before and is covered in the June 2003 column.

Hi,
If you take a close at some of the Smith-Morra games I have commented on then maybe things will become clearer. If not then ask another more detailed question in the forum and I will try to answer it.