MNb wrote on 09/14/11 at 20:25:33:
Michel Barbaut wrote on 09/14/11 at 19:09:21:
For me the Morra-Smith gambit is : 1.e4,c5 2.d4,cxd4 3.c3,dxc3 4.Nxc3 (ok it's an accepted one) but the game you give is only a 2.c3 Sicilian ...
Of course, but only because Smith choose so.
Sure Benkö was not the first to play the Benkö-Gambit, but he certainly was the first to play it
with success and on a regular base. This is a common argument. So still both Morra and Matulovic have stronger claims.
I do know that such claims are not always granted. Fact is though that the name Morra Gambit is very common (just check Wikipedia in various languages) and that there is not a strong argument to attach Smith' name.
We're not going to rename the King's Gambit after Chigorin and Spielmann either, are we? They both played ánd wrote about 2.f4.
Interesting thoughts but I'm not convinced :
1) The french Wikipedia quote "(Smith) Morra gambit" ...
2) Chigorin & Spielmann wrote about the King's Gambit .. OK, but were they alone ones to wrote about it ? I doubt as it was a major opening at that time.
2) Matulovic played not to much Morra (Smith) gambit and gave it up in 1958 .... not too much faith to it
3) How many wrote so much about the gambit ?
Smith is alone in this case ! He popularized, studied and published a lot on it ... like Benkö with it's own gambit !!
So I really think it's worth adding his name.
Morra-Smith gambit what else ?
P.S : Morra-Smith and not Smith-Morra because the french player was the first to studied it seriously so it was the reason I prefer the first one … and because we’re both French !
Next time I hope to prove this gambit is sound, sorry Phil but I disagree with you and Patrick ...