8.Qe2 d6 9.0-0 Nd7 10.Bf4
a)10...b4 11.Na4 Ngf6 and now what? The piece sac 11.Nd5 exd5 12.exd5+ Be7 13.Bxd6 Kf8 does not look correct to me.
b)10...Ngf6 11.Rad1 (iso 11.Rfd1)
b1)after 11...Qb8 White has nothing better than 12.Rd2, which only transposes.
b2)The advantage might become clear after 11...b4 12.Nd5 exd5 (Nc5!?)13.exd5+ Be7 14.Bxd6 Kf8 15.Bxe7+ (15.Bg3!?) Qxe7 16.Qxe7+ Kxe7 17.d6+ Kf8 18.Ng5 h6 19.Nxf7 Rh7 20.Rfe1, which is not possible with the rook on a1 iso f1.

One idea to meet Sevenviolets 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.Ng5 is Be7 11.f4 Bxg5 12.fxg5 Ne7 and White is a pawn down with no lead in development.
8.0-0 d6 9.Bf4 has been played before; after Nf6 I don't see anything better than 10.Qe2 Nbd7 (now b4!?) transposing once again.

I wonder, what Langrock has to say about 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.Rd1 Ngf6 11.Bf4 b4!? As 12.Na4 Nxe4 13.Bc2 Nef6 14.Bxd6 Bxd6 15.Rxd6 Qc7 16.Rd4 0-0 leaves Black with a safe extra pawn, I suppose it has to be 12.Nd5 exd5 13.exd5+
a)13...Be7 14.Bxd6 is an inferior version of variation b2 above.
b)13...Qe7 14.Qd2 Ne4 15.Qxb4 Ndc5 16.Ba4+ Kd8 17.Re1 again makes me wish, that White had played 10.Bf4 Ngf6 11.Rd1.

Maybe White can try 11.a3 Be7 12.Rfd1 (or 12.Rad1) Qb8 13.Rd2 0-0 14.Rad1 Byfield-Torres Santa, Philadelphia 2000. In an informal corr game my opponent answered Nc5 15.Bc2 e5 and I was happy with 16.Bg5 Rd8 17.b4 Ne6 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Bb3 Nd4 20.Nxd4 exd4 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.Bxd5 Ra7 23.f4 Rc8 24.g4 MNb-Peeters, corr 1996.
Of course I would like to save the tempo spend on 11.a3, but the 11...b4 variations are not clear to me.

What I don't get about Langrock's analysis is his mainline after 12. Rd4 goes 12...a5 13. Bg5 Be7 14. Bxf6 Nxf6.
I would say that after 12...a5 13. Bf4 is very annoying for black. White immediately piles up on the d-pawn with 14. Rad1 coming. He can't play 13...e5 14. Bxe5 dxe5 15. Nxe5, nor 13...Qb8 14. Rad1 e5 15. Nxe5 dxe5 16. Qc4 crashing through. 
Actually I think after 12. Rd4 the threat of 13. Bf4 more or less forces 12...Qa5, moving out of the firepower of the Rd4. Then after Langrock's 13. Bg5 I would prefer 13...Qb5 14. Qe1 a5 over his 13...Rc8, though that is playable too of course.

Sevenviolets wrote on 11/10/06 at 22:04:31:


Yes it's a good book .Langrrock play the morra since years,there is plenty improvements black and withe. more objective than Palkovi 's book.

Is recommendation against the main line is 10.Be3 0-0 11.b4!? Langrock
and mine 10.Be3 0-0 11.b4!  lol

While 8...b4 may well be a bit too ambitious, I don't think this is especially relevant. As MNb some posts ago stated, black can play 8...d6 9. Qe2 Nd7 10. 0-0, transposing back to 8.Qe2. This is also given as a mainline by Langrock.

I wouldn't disagree with that based on rough impressions.  Black's position seems miserable after the knight sac.

In the variation 8.0-0 d6 there is also he simple 9.Bf4 and now if b4?! 10.Ba4+

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 e6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Bc4 b5 7. Bb3 I think that 7.Bd3 is better than 7.Bb3 but i cant find good games with it.
What do you think?
I know that 7.Bd3 maybe is not in the spirit of the morra.
Bye

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 e6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Bc4 b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Qe2 d6 9. 0-0 Nd7

I prefer 8.0-0 move order, but let´s say it tranposes...

8.Qe2 d6 9.0-0 Nd7 10.Ng5!? leaves us with immensely complicated position.

10..h6 11.Nxe6! fxe6 12.Bxe6 with compensation. (12..g6 13.e5 or 12..Ngf6 13.Be3!?) or 10..Ngf6 11.f4!?

Difficult to say if 10.Ng5!? is good or bad. Sure it is very complex and unclear. Ok for OTB games. For corr. games, it needs to be deeply analysed.