Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Leonard Barden
Posts: 1549
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Leonard Barden » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:49 pm

[quote="Paul McKeown
Ken Smith spent some years in the 1950's stationed in England with the USAAF and played rather a lot of chess, with some fair success. [/quote]

Ken Smith played in the first British Lightning Championship at Ilford 1953. It was a strong event but Dr Paul List ran away from the field and finished around three points clear (about 20 rounds). List was deemed ineligible for the title even though he had represented Britain in the 1946 radio match against the USSR. Ken Smith tied for second, I think playing in his USAAF uniform, but was also ruled ineligible.
He was the local Texan representative at San Antonio 1972, where he had a hard time but drew with Keres and took Karpov to 70 moves.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3054
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:05 pm

Rob Thompson wrote:The Morra gambit can only be (at best) as good as the c3 sicillian, and afaik that is very rare at high levels of chess.
As an afficionado of the latter, I must protest :)

2c3 has been played on occasion by virtually all top players of modern times, from Kasparov downwards.

Some pretty strong GMs (if not absolute elite) make it a main part of their repoirtoire - do *any* GMs have the Smith-Morra as a regular??
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18344
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:12 pm

Rob Thompson wrote:The Morra gambit can only be (at best) as good as the c3 sicillian, and afaik that is very rare at high levels of chess.
From 96321 games in 2009 ( collected TWICs), I have the sequence 1 e4 c5 2 c3 in 1569 games and the sequence 1 e4 c5 2 d4 in 222. The c3 Sicilian is played reasonably often by British players, not least by the British Champion. You spot a few GMs amongst the players as well. The Morra only seems to be played by players of whom you've never heard in events known only to Mark Crowther.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3009
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:13 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Rob Thompson wrote:The Morra gambit can only be (at best) as good as the c3 sicillian, and afaik that is very rare at high levels of chess.
As an afficionado of the latter, I must protest :)

2c3 has been played on occasion by virtually all top players of modern times, from Kasparov downwards.

Some pretty strong GMs (if not absolute elite) make it a main part of their repoirtoire - do *any* GMs have the Smith-Morra as a regular??
I think the point is that Black can, if they so choose, transpose to a c3 sicilian (albeit they are probably really limited to the Nf6 lines) - hence "at best". The value of the Morra gambit from white's perspective is that for many Black players it imposes an obligation to try and refute it - equalising is not sufficient - which may in turn give White an increased prospect of victory.

User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Rob Thompson » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:30 pm

You can transpose into a g6 line of the c3 sicilian as well as the Nf6 lines (and possibly d5 as well, but i'm not sure about that one), but this was my point in general
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Neill Cooper » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:46 pm

Rob Thompson wrote:The Morra gambit can only be (at best) as good as the c3 sicillian, and afaik that is very rare at high levels of chess.
But I only play at my level (about ECF 170 to 180), not at the highest levels of chess
I find that the Morra works for me - my last 3 results are not atypical, and have been draws with a 195, a 205 and beating a 159.
It is the only opening with which I regularly beat players graded about 190.
When I first started playing the Morra, aged 16 and graded about 100, I scored 19 wins in my first 20 games with it.
It culminated with a 21 move win against the Kent board 2 who was 50+ grading points above me. He declined it with 3 Nf6.

So a theoretically 'bad' opening can still be part of the club player's repertory.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2084
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:48 pm

When I played the Sicilian I often faced the Morra.

I use to look at the b1 Knight and play 3...d3

Image

It usually went into some kind of Moroczy Bind which the White player
never really knew what he was doing.

Had a good score with but in reality I only played it against 'weaker' players.
The good players I faced of course did not play the Morra.

I know an Edinburgh player who has sprung the The Siberian Trap
4 times as Black in serious OTB games.

(I wonder if anyone at the coming Siberian Olympiad will fall for it).

1. e4 c5
2. d4 cxd4
3. c3 dxc3?! (3...d3!) :wink:
4. Nxc3 Nc6
5. Nf3 e6
6. Bc4 Qc7
7. 0-0 Nf6
8. Qe2 Ng4
9. h3? Nd4!

Image

My Database gives me 35 White victims.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Neill Cooper » Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:37 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote: I know an Edinburgh player who has sprung the The Siberian Trap
4 times as Black in serious OTB games.

1. e4 c5
2. d4 cxd4
3. c3 dxc3?! (3...d3!) :wink:
4. Nxc3 Nc6
5. Nf3 e6
6. Bc4 Qc7
7. 0-0 Nf6
8. Qe2 Ng4
9. h3? Nd4!
I got to move 8 once and then I realise why Ng4 had been played. So I played 9 Nd5?! - that was won of my luckier wins against a 190

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18344
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:27 pm

Returning to the original subject which was 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d5, this month's Gary Lane column also discusses it. The link to the most recent column is http://www.chesscafe.com/lane/lane.htm

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3054
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:44 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Returning to the original subject which was 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d5, this month's Gary Lane column also discusses it. The link to the most recent column is http://www.chesscafe.com/lane/lane.htm
Interestingly, it seems to say Keres played this "rubbish" line in the 1950s (against his old friend Heuer)
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3175
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Rubbish Theoretical Article?

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:26 pm

I quite often face 1. d4 d5, 2. c4 Nf6 during internent Blitz games. I'm quite sure it's not a terribly good opening but my record against it is actually embarrasingly poor :oops:

Post Reply