Quote:
 

You are entirely right. Does white have to show his cards with Rfd1, Be3, Bf4 or a4 and can black use his flexibility to react accordingly? As far as I recall we`ve shown previously that Rfd1 turns out fine for black.

In case of 9.Bf4 b5 10.Bb3 b4 might very well work due to the "saved" tempo. At least my brief analysis looks decent for black.

Palkovi`s 9.a4 looks like it might be white`s best try.

I am not sure about the assesment of the line I gave, but if black comfortably can go 10.. Bb7 it`s not that relevant at the moment. RR is about materially equal to Q+P and black has a slight initiative so I think it`s fair to give it the unclear sign.

Quickly reading through the topic, I don`t think there has been any discussion of the Finegold move-order, i.e. postponing Bc8-b7: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 d6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.0-0 a6 8.Qe2 Nbd7 




What do we think of it? I assume that the bishop can prove useful on c8 in some lines, defending d7 and saving a tempo that can be used elsewhere. I`ve had a hard time finding anything on it on the internet, including games. Just analysing quickly I see that the brute force variation 9.Rd1 b5 10.Bb3 Be7 11.e5!? dxe 12.Nxe5 Qb6 13.Qf3 fails due to 13...0-0. 

On the face of it 13.Be3 looks like a better attempt, but black still seems to be doing ok after 13..Qb7

I know Bob Ciaffone & Ben Finegold have written a book on this line but it seems hard to come by. John Watson seems to approve of both the book and the variation in his review on http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_smith_morra_gambit.html

I`ve put this post in this thread due to the apparent similarities.

Kamsky's interesting idea!


[Event "14th Ordix Open"]
[Site "Mainz GER"]
[Date "2007.08.18"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Negele, M."]
[Black "Kamsky, G."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B21"]
[WhiteElo "2245"]
[BlackElo "2718"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "2007.08.18"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2007.08.20"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O Nge7 8.
Bg5 b5 9. Bb3 Bb7 10. Qe2?! dubious but what else Nd4? Qb8 11. Rfe1 Ng6 12. Rad1 Bc5 13. e5 h6 14. Bc1 Bb4
15. Bc2 Nce7 16. Rd4 Bxc3 17. bxc3 Bd5 18. Ba3 Qb7 19. Rxd5 Nxd5 20. Bxg6 fxg6
21. Qe4 Kf7 22. Nh4 Rhc8 23. Qxg6+ Kg8 24. Bc1 d6 25. exd6 Qf7 26. Qg4 Rc4 27.
Re4 Nf6 28. Rxc4 Nxg4 29. Rxg4 g5 30. Nf3 Qf5 31. Rd4 Qc2 32. Bd2 e5 33. Rd5 e4
34. Ne1 Qxa2 35. Rd4 Rd8 36. h4 Qe6 37. hxg5 hxg5 38. Bxg5 Rxd6 0-1

urusov wrote on 08/15/07 at 16:02:23:


Sure, but Dji and I are having fun proving that Black's task is not easy at all, if he plays a6, e6, b5 and Bb7 against the Morra. White's key move after ...Nge7 of course is Bc1-g5 immediately, forcing a weakness after either ...f6 and ...h6. What I have learned the last few weeks is how dangerous that Nd5 sac is.

My last post was a mistake

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 a6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7 8.O-O 
b4 9.Nd5 exd5 10.exd5 Bd6 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Ng5 O-O 13.Qh5 h6 14.Ne4 Qc7 15.Bxh6 Bxh2+ 16.Kh1 Qe5 17.Bg5 Nxd5 Zelic-Sermek, Makarska 1995, 18.Rad1! wins:
a)18...Bf4 18.Bxd5 Bxd5 19.Nf6+.
b)18...Qxb2 19.Rxd5! Bxd5 20.Bxd5 Nc6 21.Nf6+.
c)18...Qf5 19.Qxh2 Nb6 20.Bc2.
d)18...Nf4 19.Qxh2 Bxe4 20.Bxf4 Qf5 21.Re3.

We cannot blame Zelic for overlooking a move like 18.Rad1, but if Langrock does not mention it, I question the thoroughness of his research (of course there is nothing in Palkovi, he mainly seems to recycle old Flesch' material).

After 11...Kf8 White may investigate 12.Nd4 iso 12.Qd4, eg 12.Nd4 Qc7 13.Nf5 Bxh2+ 14.Kh1 Be5 15.Qg4 g6 16.Rxe5 gxf5 17.Qf4 +-. It is possible though, that Black can defend better.

I am not entirely sure about 12.Qd4: a5 (peculiar, that this is best, but I could not find an improvement for Black) 13.Bg5 f6 14.Bf4 Ra6 (Bxf4!? 15.Qxf4 Qb6 16.Rac1 is not clear yet) 15.Re2 Ne7 16.Rae1 Nf5 (iso Sakai's Nc8) 17.Qe4 Bxf4 18.Qxf5 Bd6 19.Qh5 g6 20.Qh6+ Kf7 21.Re7+ wins.

Then there is 13...Nf6 (iso 13...f6) 14.Re2 Na6 15.Rae1 (simple, likeable chess; you have an open file against the enemy king, so double your rooks) Bc5 (I have not looked at Nc5 yet, but don't think this will save Black; White can even afford to play 16.Bc2) 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Ne5 Qf5 18.Qd2 (18.Qh4 probably will do as well) Jenull-Baumann, corr 2003 and Black can keep on fighting with d6 19.Bc2 Qxe5 20.Rxe5 dxe5 21.Rxe5. White's reduced material will make it harder to harass Black's king, but that same King has long term safety problems.

Finally there is an interesting move order question.

Van Dyck,M (2017) - Hoeksema,H (2378) [B21]
Gent Open (2), 15.07.2006
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Nf3 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7 8.0–0 b4 9.Nd5 exd5 10.Re1 d6 11.e5 Ne7 12.Bf4 Ng6 13.exd6+ Kd7 14.Nd4 Nxf4 15.Qg4+ Kxd6 16.Qxf4+ Kc5 17.Rac1+ Kb6 18.Ne6 Qf6 19.Qe3+ d4 20.Nxd4 Bc5 21.Rxc5 Kxc5 22.Ne6+ Kd6 23.Qc5+ Kd7 24.Rd1+ Ke8 25.Nc7# 1–0

A little embarrassing for Black, considering the rating gap. White missed 11.Ba4+ Nd7 12.e5 winning.
10...Bc5 is not convincing imo: 11.Bg5 f6 12.exd5+ Kf8 13.Bf4 Ne7 14.d6 Ng6 15.Bg3 and Black faces the same problems as above.
So 10...Bd6 11.exd5+ remains, which just transposes.

Sevenviolets wrote on 10/15/06 at 08:38:37:


This line is dealt with in depth by Langrock. I have not checked his analysis myself so I don's know how good it is. Nevertheless I would not want to play either side without having a long look at the analysis by Langrock.

He gives 10..Bd6 11. Re1+ Ne7 12. Ng5 0-0 13. Qh5 h6 14.Ne4 Qc7 15.Bh6 with lots more analysis (If it does not stack up 15. Nf6 is good enough to draw.

Of course I had looked at 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Nf3 Ne7 7.Bg5 b5 8.Bb3 h6 9.Be3 Bb7 10.O-O Ng6 11.Nd4 b4 12.Nd5, but I was not convinced after exd5 13.exd5 Bd6 14.Nf5 Qf6, eg 15.Nxd6+ Qxd6 16.Rc1 0-0 17.Bc5 Qf6 18.Bxf8 Nxf8. White has some compensation, but again, is it enough?

Later edit, a comment on Dji's next post:

That's a very clever idea, my compliments.