Does he consider 3. ... Qa5!? ?
In my opinion black at least equalizes here (no I'm not joking!).

barnaby wrote on 08/03/12 at 14:43:30:


If you want to play the black side on page 153, then good luck !! I you have found so " countless other examples of this type of error." Please write to QualityChess.co.uk ! 

As usual, gambiteers are on the "Force side" ,others on the "Dark side".  But remember at the end who wins .... maybe the Smith-Morra Gambit is the choosen one ! 

Players of 3...Nf6 are repeatedly called "schemers." Give me a break. If you can play a perfectly fine chess move and win Esserman's condemnation, what good are any of his opinions? I sincerely hope that when he attempts the Morra in future, he encounters nothing but 3...Nf6. That includes his time in Hell.

urusov wrote on 08/03/12 at 19:24:25:


Disagree (respectfully) and feel his "manly" comments are sexist and out of line.  I have been playing gambits for 20+ years and genitalia has nothing to do with how and what line a person plays.

There are many female players that would and do take umbrage at these type of comments.

Substitute some racial comment or attribute for "manliness" and it would be clear how inappropriate these types of comments really are in today's world.

Page 245. Chapter called: Searching the Stars for a Refutation.

His main lines runs:

1. e4 c5 3. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 a6 7. 0-0 e6 8. Qe2 b5 9 Rd1 b5

This is one of several examples where moves are repeated.

Page 153 in Chapter Slaying the Dragon, he states after move 
22, g5 that " Soon, white's queen and knight will put the black king out of his misery"  and gives the position as +/- when this is simply no the case at all.   Black can hold.

There are countless other examples of this type of error.

I want to be clear that I like the book, and even like the Morra gambit, but feel the publisher rushed their effort and that these types of mistakes are not the typical effort from Quality chess to which I have become accustomed and feel it is not up to their usually excellent standards.

As for the author's attitude, I think that is too much an opinion and while I find it uncalled for some other people may like it.  But these types of move repeating errors are not subjective opinions and in books to day that cost upwards of $30, they are inexcusable.

Agree here with Markovich and found too much arrogance from the IM author when none is required.

In addition, there are several serious flaws (black making same move twice--playing e6 & b5 two times in the first 9 moves!  Publisher error most likely).  I am also not so sure about some of his +/- claims or the claims black will be checkmated when it is clear that a position is closer to = and an adequate defense is available.

I think this is one of the weaker efforts by Quality Chess and seems as if it were rushed but still found it interesting.

MNb wrote on 07/31/12 at 14:50:35:


It was my perception that the "Taylor" was established as a significant independent line, and indeed a threat to the viability of the Morra, by the game Kenneth Smith-Larry Evans, San Antonio 1972 (Mecking also played it against Smith in that event).  Flesch mentioned the Evans game, with some verbiage about how obviously White could play better and careful analysis was needed.  The book led one reviewer (a US master) to refer to Flesch as a "snake-oil salesman"; some years later GM Drazen Marovic contented himself with describing the book as "optimistically written."

Michel Barbaut wrote on 07/31/12 at 11:18:14:


Indeed he had a chapter on 6...a6, but in the most critical line he claimed a transposition to another line/chapter, which wasn't actually the case.  It was quite egregious really.