Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) History of the 'Morra' Gambit (Read 42886 times)
NiceNike
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 15
Joined: 11/08/21
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #29 - 11/09/21 at 00:59:39
Post Tools
nice to know about it
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Djy
Full Member
***
Offline


Non mais y connait pas
Raoul!

Posts: 157
Joined: 03/21/10
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #28 - 09/20/11 at 18:01:13
Post Tools
Dragonslayer wrote on 09/19/11 at 14:51:43:
The Langrock book has a drawing on the cover which I have seen referred to as depicting Pierre Morra. Is this true?


Yes true
  

La connerie c'est la décrontaction de l'intelligence  Gainsbourg
La victoire est brillante mais l'échec est mat!  Coluche
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #27 - 09/20/11 at 12:32:01
Post Tools
One could likewise argue that 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 belongs to the Caro-Kann (3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nc6 5.cxd5 Qxd5) while 3...g6 4.cxd4 d5 5.exd5 Nf6 is usually called the Panov-Botvinnik Attack.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


CCE at ICCF 2021 and CCM
at ICCF 2023

Posts: 1829
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #26 - 09/20/11 at 08:53:02
Post Tools
About c3 sicilian and Morra gambit transposing, I had the impression that  2 .. Nf6 was mainline in Alapin sicilian. Several black repertour books against c3 sicilian recommends d5 instead to get more life in the position but thats an other story. Mainline in Morra starts with taking the pawn but if a game transposes to c3 sicilian via a Morra order I would not disagree if it gets inserted into a Morra database Smiley. The Morra move order has also an advantage that declined with d5 instead is less strong than c3 sicilian with d5.

The categorisation comes from the fact that the position is more often reached via a 2 c3 move order than a Morra move order.

About Morra, it is even possible to transpose to French by playing meeting c3 via e6 cxd4 d5 even thorught an early exchange of c pawns are possible in whites favor. I surprised an opponnet with about the same rating with e6 a won a nice game in 1999 but I have not repeated it since.

There are more funny categorications in chess openings with a similar theme.
After for example 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Bb4+ it is a Bogo indian. But after 4 Nc3 we have a Nimzo Indian and after the reply b6 we have a Queens Indian.
« Last Edit: 09/20/11 at 10:13:53 by bragesjo »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #25 - 09/19/11 at 14:51:43
Post Tools
I really don't care what the name is. I have used both Smith-Morra and simply Morra myself.
What I don't understand is why everyone is always insisting that a declined Morra leads to the Alapin. You could just as well claim that ...cxd4 in the Alapin leads to the Morra.
E.g.: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 now people will tell you this is a c3/Alapin Siclian. But the Alapin line is 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 and here there are 3 more popular moves than 4...cxd4. Even after 4...Nf6 5.Nf3 (or dxc5) cxd4 is way from the most popular move. In fact ...cxd4 is often inaccurate.
I understand that some people consider the Morra inferior to the Alapin hence they consider all positions that occur from both as belonging to the Alapin, when in reality some of them occur more frequently and logically from the Morra and some even from the Queen's gambit.
Yes, the Morra declined with Nf6 is something very different from the accepted kind but you could say the same thing about the 2...Bc5 declined King's gambit (which also comes from the Vienna and Bishop openings) versus the 3...g5 accepted.
But really this is all nitpicking. The Morra starts with the moves 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 period.
More information on Morra would be more interesting than semantics and classifications.
The Langrock book has a drawing on the cover which I have seen referred to as depicting Pierre Morra. Is this true?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #24 - 09/17/11 at 17:06:50
Post Tools
Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/17/11 at 11:53:53:
As I said I really would like him to play far more games with the gambit (in his accepted form). He try to but didn't succeed ... so sad.

After all, I'm probably too much irritable whith my beloved gambit ...

Eehh, yes. I really don't care if you continue to call that beloved gambit Morra-Smith Gambit.
But I do care about facts. After ...dxc3 Matulovic scored a whopping 89% according to my database out of 9 games. His only loss was against Kotov, which is not really something to be ashamed of. Matulovic won with it in at least one important tournament:



Matulovic,M - Bradvarevic,A [B21]
JUGch Sombor (7), 1957



What's more, the combination with 13.Nd5 is theoretically significant until today.
I don't think the Morra Gambit has very often been played on a higher level with success.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Michel Barbaut
Junior Member
**
Offline


Do. Or do not. There is
no try

Posts: 58
Location: France (Auberchicourt)
Joined: 03/05/10
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #23 - 09/17/11 at 11:53:53
Post Tools
@Dragonslayer

I understand, but what about Matulovic contribution to the Morra-Smith gambit ? 5 games seems too little , at least for me.
I disagree with you following : Dragonslayer wrote on 09/17/11 at 09:36:44:
@Michel Barbaut.
Sorry but MNb is right on this one. Offering the gambit is clearly the objective criterion otherwise you might say I never played e.g. The King's gambit if all my games went 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nc3 which is the Vienna.
Which is rather silly.


Offering the gambit is a part of the criterion, if you wonder why, just ask yourself what happened if all his opponents went 1.e4,c5  2.d4,cxd4  3.c3 and followed with 3..Nf6 ? In this case we wouldn't never speak about the Morra-Smith, isn't it ? So most of his games has nothing to do with M-S gambit.
And you're variation about the Vienna has a lot of similarity with the KG ?
The 2.c3 sicilian has nothing to do with the Morra-Smith.

As I said I really would like him to play far more games with the gambit (in his accepted form). He try to but didn't succeed ... so sad.

After all, I'm probably too much irritable whith my beloved gambit ...


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #22 - 09/17/11 at 09:36:44
Post Tools
@Michel Barbaut.
Sorry but MNb is right on this one. Offering the gambit is clearly the objective criterion otherwise you might say I never played e.g. The King's gambit if all my games went 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nc3 which is the Vienna.
Which is rather silly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #21 - 09/16/11 at 21:24:53
Post Tools
Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/16/11 at 15:14:05:
I can't defend the name of the opening but you can "attack it" , not a very objective opinion ...

?? As far as I am concerned you can defend the name Morra-Smith Gambit as much as you want. I won't comment if you use it either. I only attack your arguments ....
Morra Gambit, Smith-Morra Gambit, Morra-Smith Gambit, as long as I understand what someone means it's all fine with me.

Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/16/11 at 15:14:05:
Next time, more informations  (only !) about the gambit !

Nice. Have you checked those threats already? I would like it if you had some improvements for White (well, or for Black too).
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


CCE at ICCF 2021 and CCM
at ICCF 2023

Posts: 1829
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #20 - 09/16/11 at 19:59:52
Post Tools
Yes Jonassson and Schackbulletinen förlag is indeed swedish.

Basman book and common language in Sweden however only calls it Morra Gambit.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Michel Barbaut
Junior Member
**
Offline


Do. Or do not. There is
no try

Posts: 58
Location: France (Auberchicourt)
Joined: 03/05/10
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #19 - 09/16/11 at 15:14:05
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 09/16/11 at 00:54:49:
Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
Are all the 21 games about the accepted variation ?

@MNb : I don't think this is a relevant question or argument. Matulovic was willing to play the Gambit in 21 games.

If you start a game following 1.f4,e5 and told me it's a From gambit after 2.e4, isn't there something wrong ?
If you start the game playing 1.c4 does it mean that it's an english one ? Sure not !! You have to wait a little moves before saying that.
If I was wrong all Matulovic games would be classified with the ECO code B21 (Morra-sMith gambit) and not B22 (2.c3 Sicilian), whatever the first moves are !
If you want to convinced yourself that he played 21 Morra-Smith gambit, so sad.
The resulting positions are completely differ
ent, of course, when you accept the pawn on c3 and when you don't !


Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
If you really believe that playing about 20 games justified to attach a name to an opening ...

@MNb : No, I brought it up to refute your argument pro Smith. Name attaching to openings quite often has nothing to do with justice.
If you take your own argument seriously you should back Matulovic.

Once again, I don't think that playing no more than 5 games with an opening give you credit to attach your name to it. Do you remember that Ken Smith wrote several books about this gambit ? (He should have published one more titled "Random writings in the SMith-Morra Gambit" with history, anecdotes, ond so on, but he died before being able to finish his book) Published a lot of analysis (even payed analysis by GM) ? Played it far more tha Matulovic himself ? Popularize it than noone else !! Do you know anyone else doing that in the same way ? I'm sorry but not Matulovic (but I really would like him doing so !)
And the fact that Smith was not strong as Matulovic is completely irrelevant with such a programme he did !

If , all this do not suffice to prove that he could attach his name to the opening ...

I hope to publish, one day, a book on the subject, as I collected all I can found on it since more than 20 years now ... but don't be afraid I will never add my name to the gambit  Wink



Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
Unfortunately, most of the games by Smith were not recorded

@MNb: Matulovic being from Jugoslavia you can bet quite a few Morra Gambit games from him were not recorded either. Moreover if you think playing many, many games with an opening justifies renaming 75% of the openings have to be renamed.

Probably right, if not sure, but your argument he switched to 1.c4 is irrelevant and I prove it with facts ! So I really believe he lost fait after his loss against Kotov (1958)

Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
2) Most GMs don't accept the pawn on c3 and transpose to a 2.c3 sicilian !

@MNb : While I do think the Morra Gambit very well could be sound this is a silly argument. Hardly any GM has played the Morra Gambit in serious games, so this shows according to your logic that it's bad.

Ok just check the database, and you will find that GM Vladimir Afromeev (RUS) 2500 has played it scoring scoring 5,5/6, if this gambit was not sound I doubt any GM would play it. If it was unsound how many GM would declined it (most of the time with ...Nf6 leading to a 2.c3 Sicilian) ? Even Anand do it this way some years ago, and he is not an alone one !!!
And how many recommends this way of meeting the gambit ? A lot ! And, according to me, it has some common sense, even if I would take the challenge with Black to take on c3.

If you want to know why GM don't paly it, just check some books ont the gambit (Burgess, Palkovi, Langrock) and you'll find the answer. I can't quote evrything here ...


@MNb : A bit of scepticism doesn't hurt, while overoptimism might.

One of the main quality of a chessplayer I teach is to be objective ...

@MNb : To give you something to digest:
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1266964341/0#0

Food for thoughts ! Thanks!

@MNb :Stigma's post will provide you with useful links. Frankly I am more curious about your analytical contributions than your prolonged defense of Ken Smith.
More historical information about Pierre Morra also would be more than welcome; he remains a quite obscure guy.


I can't defend the name of the opening but you can "attack it" , not a very objective opinion ...

I try to prove with facts and objectivity why I think the best name should be ... if you disagree it's your choice after all.





[quote author=4C5C4F494B5D44412E0 link=1315903095/18#18 date=1316168163]Interesting thread, interesting to learn who Morra actually was. In Sweden the gambit is only called "Morra Gambit" and not "Smith-Morra".

@bragesjo : A little bit strange since one of the first book is « Morra-Smith Gambit »  by  S.Jonasson  edited by Schackbulletinens Forlag in 1971, and I think it's a swedish one, isn't it ? But since 1971, name has, probably, moved a little bit.

Next time, more informations  (only !) about the gambit !




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


CCE at ICCF 2021 and CCM
at ICCF 2023

Posts: 1829
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #18 - 09/16/11 at 10:16:03
Post Tools
Interesting thread, interesting to learn who Morra actually was. In Sweden the gambit is only called "Morra Gambit" and not "Smith-Morra".

In the good old days when I played this gambit with both sides and decided to be more serios than just reading a Swedish translated version of Mike Basmans "Chess Openings" that had a good Morra introduction chapter and searched for theory books I came up with the name "Smith-Morra" from the book "Winning with the Smith-Morra Gambit" (as I recall it was a good book).

However a few years later I later switched to open sicilian instead but thats an other story.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #17 - 09/16/11 at 00:54:49
Post Tools
Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
Are all the 21 games about the accepted variation ?

I don't think this is a relevant question or argument. Matulovic was willing to play the Gambit in 21 games.

Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
If you really believe that playing about 20 games justified to attach a name to an opening ...

No, I brought it up to refute your argument pro Smith. Name attaching to openings quite often has nothing to do with justice.
If you take your own argument seriously you should back Matulovic.

Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
Unfortunately, most of the games by Smith were not recorded

Matulovic being from Jugoslavia you can bet quite a few Morra Gambit games from him were not recorded either. Moreover if you think playing many, many games with an opening justifies renaming 75% of the openings have to be renamed.
Finally Matulovic used it with considerably more success than Smith on quite a high level - at four subsequent Jugoslav Championships. You could even argue that in the 1958 championship were so scared that they tended to decline it, like Vaisser does.
Remembering Larsen's comment nobody can maintain Smith scared his opponents at San Antonio 1972.
So again if you take your own argument seriously you should back Matulovic.
For me just Morra Gambit is good enough. As I wrote before, if it's about justice and logic the name should be something like Kieseritzky-Prins-Morra-Tartakower-Matulovic-Flesch-Smith Gambit.

Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/15/11 at 22:02:33:
2) Most GMs don't accept the pawn on c3 and transpose to a 2.c3 sicilian !

While I do think the Morra Gambit very well could be sound this is a silly argument. Hardly any GM has played the Morra Gambit in serious games, so this shows according to your logic that it's bad.
A bit of scepticism doesn't hurt, while overoptimism might.
To give you something to digest:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1266964341/0#0

Stigma's post will provide you with useful links. Frankly I am more curious about your analytical contributions than your prolonged defense of Ken Smith.
More historical information about Pierre Morra also would be more than welcome; he remains a quite obscure guy.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Michel Barbaut
Junior Member
**
Offline


Do. Or do not. There is
no try

Posts: 58
Location: France (Auberchicourt)
Joined: 03/05/10
Gender: Male
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #16 - 09/15/11 at 22:02:33
Post Tools
@ Djy
Thanks for the games, some interesting ones !!

@MNb
Are all the 21 games about the accepted variation ? I have some too by Matulovic and most of them transpose to the 2.c3 Sicilian (after ...Nf6 -the most played- and ...d5)
If you really believe that playing about 20 games justified to attach a name to an opening ... so what about a man who played more than one hundred games with it ? Unfortunately, most of the games by Smith were not recorded  Cry
In the Megadatabase 2011, there are 2071 recorded games by GM Matulovic, 1073 with white among which  988 are classified from B00 to C99 and so only no more than 56 games for everything else, so I really believe that he lost faith with the gambit ! And I hope to find where I read this too,from an old revue but I can't remember now exactly which one.

@ Phil
Why do I believe this gambit to be correct ?
There are several reasons ...
1) Actually, there is no refutation of the gambit
2) Most GMs (or books if you prefer, write for the black side ) don't accept the pawn on c3 and transpose to a 2.c3 sicilian !!!!
3) Most of the rest take the challenge on c3 but add something like this "this gambit is dangerous and should be taken seriously" Just check books (or video) by Gufeld, Browne and the latest QC book by Ftacnik

I really like the following :

- In 1994, during the French championship in Chambéry, the G.M Anatoly Vaisser was given a simul. And when it was ended, we discussed with the G.M, I took advantage of it to ask him what he thought about  the gambit Morra (that he had massacred on one of the chessboards near to me me). His answer (add the Russian accent) demonstrate very well what strong players think of this gambit:

- M.B : «  What do you think about the Smith-Morra gambit ? »
- A.V : «  … the Morra gambit … black takes the pawn  … and, at least, has a draw »
- M.B : « Which variation do you play against it ? »
- A.V : « ..I … I don’t take the pawn ... I play 3…Nf6 » (!!!)

Smiley Nice answer, isn't it ?

To be continued  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Djy
Full Member
***
Offline


Non mais y connait pas
Raoul!

Posts: 157
Joined: 03/21/10
Re: History of the 'Morra' Gambit
Reply #15 - 09/15/11 at 19:46:06
Post Tools
The last Thematic event ICCF (Final) with strong player
white score : +9,=16,-5 not to bad.
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=19721



  

La connerie c'est la décrontaction de l'intelligence  Gainsbourg
La victoire est brillante mais l'échec est mat!  Coluche
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo