TN wrote on 03/31/09 at 10:28:54:


Regarding the variation 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e5!? 4.c3, Black also has the option of 4...Nc6 and if 5.cxd4 then I think 5...d5 might be playable.  If I remember correctly this variation and 4.Bc4 (instead of 4.c3) were discussed by Stefan Buecker in his Der Geier by way of 1.d4 c5 2.e4.

kylemeister
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3 dc 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 a6 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Qe2 (considered a mistake by Ken Smith) Bg4 9. Rd1 is better for Black, I claim (though I prefer 9...e6 to Smith's 9...Bxf3).

Against 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Qe2 with the idea of 0-0, Rd1 and c3, Black should presumably be able to reach the above line, or maybe get an even better version of it.

MNb
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nc6 6.c3/6.0-0 Bg4 and now what?
These are good lines for Black.
Graham Burgess in Winning With The Smith-Morra Gambit recommended 8.b4, rather than 8.Qe2, in the first line above. That's not available in my move order with the Delayed Morra.
But after 5.Qe2 Nc6 in MNb's line, my score was +7 =1 -1. Just two games continued 6.c3 Bg4 (+1 =1 -0) and three continued 6.0-0 Bg4 (+2 =0 -1). The point is that Blacks were presumably being taken out of their known anti-Morra defences. They were getting in lines that were objectively at least as good for Black, but I had much more experience of the resulting positions.
I found the Delayed Morra was a good surprise weapon (at the time I was playing mostly weekend tournaments and league chess where opponents had little warning of whom they were playing and so could not prepare). However, on reviewing my results more closely, I found I did better when the gambit was declined than when it was accepted. Accordingly, I switched to the c3 Sicilian, thinking I was effectively getting a Morra Declined. My results deteriorated. Why? I believe it was because Blacks were getting the version they wanted (...Nf6, ...d5 or ...e6) instead of ending up in an unfamiliar Morra Declined.
These days I mostly play in international tournaments where opponents have up to 18 hours to prepare for each game. The Delayed Morra would quickly lose any surprise value. Instead I play Bb5(+) systems and the KIA against the Siclian, getting good results. If my results were not satisfactory, I would happily play the Delayed Morra when surprise was still a factor, eg in county matches, in the first rounds of international tournaments where the draw is done at the last minute, and in repairings (rare in Europe but common in Britain, although don't mention it to Nigel Short).

flaviddude wrote on 03/29/09 at 01:33:41:


I am toying with the idea to use this move order but what about tries like 4.dc5: Ne4: 5.ed6: or 4.Nc3 cd4: 5.Qd4: a6 6.Bg5 or 6.Nd5!?

Is this really more convinient for black than the Hungarian or the Prins variation?

Are there any threads on this?

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3 dc 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 a6 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Qe2 (considered a mistake by Ken Smith) Bg4 9. Rd1 is better for Black, I claim (though I prefer 9...e6 to Smith's 9...Bxf3).

Against 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Qe2 with the idea of 0-0, Rd1 and c3, Black should presumably be able to reach the above line, or maybe get an even better version of it.

Quote:


Just sacrificing the e-pawn has been tried a few times. 5 0-0 Nxe4 6 Qxd4 Nf6 7 Re1

There have been some recent games by the young English player Phil Makepeace in this line.

Could be the case against some Sicilian set-ups, though usually Black can 'force' an early Nc3, else either White's Pe4 gets threatened or the d5-break becomes a serious possibility..

but I'm definitely interested in some of these deferred set-ups for White, if there are good practical chances for Black to play suboptimally.

I thought most Blacks have a line prepared against the deferred c3 (Alapin), too (at least I do & all anti-sics repertoire books give options against these lines).

e.g. I opt for 2. ... d6 and have prepared 1 line against the Morra & Alapin proper, 1 more against the deferred Alapin and 1 line against the Moscow (Bb5+). The Moscow and deferred Alapin may also transpose to each other if White chooses to.

Especially against the deferred c3 lines, since I will again play 2. ... d6, play is usually similar to the Open Sic approach. So, I don't quite see the point here - is there an example of the practical merits of your approach?