Talk:Smith–Morra Gambit

We need a little context here. The first sentence should be something like: "In chess the Smith-Morra Gambit is....". I'm not qualified to add it, could someone oblige? Thanks -- sannse 20:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Um. Maybe something a little closer to standard chess diagrams? :-) Evercat 02:43, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'll see if I can whip something up. --Camembert

Hm, well I've made the images, but I can't seem to upload them - I'm getting an error message. I'll put them up as soon as I can. --Camembert

Odd, they showed up on Recent changes. I've made the article point to them. Evercat 03:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh yes, I didn't notice that - they were uploaded after all. Peculiar. --Camembert

I think that the line given should probably be removed, or others added. There are several defenses to the Morra gambit, and the one cited is [so far as I know] not a recommended one (at the very least Black typically arranges things so that White has to play Bf4 before weakening the f7-a2 diagonal with d5.

The recommendations in Jeremy Silman's Repertoire book, Joe Gallagher's _Beating the Anti-Sicilians_ and Alexander Raetsky's _Meeting e5_ are all different from each other, and all superior (in my view) to the one given here.

Sorry,that last comment was from me Phantym

You're right, of course - the article needs a lot of work. Do feel free to knock it into shape. --Camembert

The first diagram should have a KNIGHT on c3 rather than a PAWN.

—————————

I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this article by user Brian Merz, but I think it is perhaps too detailed. Do we really need every main position analysed by Crafty, especially if the evaluation is only +/- 0.10-ish? Do we need winning percentages for each position? Perhaps it would be better to only cover a couple of lines (lots of lines is fine for openings which have a lot of theory, such the Sicilian or French Defences, but there's not very much to the Morra), and in one section. I'm reluctant to take away all that work without any discussion, however. WarmasterKron 12:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, such minor evaluations are irrelevant... Ultimately, if it's within 0.25 of 0 then it's generally considered "equal chances" and that's all that needs to be said. Themindset 23:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was Smith's involvement?

Some sources call this the Morra Gambit, rather than the Smith Morra Gambit. My understanding (and I have no reference for this), is that it was Morra that used this, and Smith basically added his name to it. He wrote a book about it I believe. One book recently published Modern Morra Gambit, The: A Dynamic Weapon against the Sicilian! - Hannes Langrock uses just the name Morra and no Smith. Whilst I know the opening is generally known as the Smith Morra, if Smith had very little involvement, apart from writing about it, then this should be mentioned. I don't like the idea of someone getting credit for someone elses work.Drkirkby 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually call it the "Morra Gambit" myself for the same reason you outline, but Ken Smith definitely did try out the Morra Gambit as well, and probably contributed to the theory of the opening. In the international tournament in San Antonio 1972 he played it three times with White, with three losses as a result. In one game where Smith was White his opponent responded to 1.e4 with 1...e6; a mistake according to Bent Larsen who gave 1...e6 a "(?)" because: "stronger is 1...c5 which wins a pawn".

For injustice in the naming of moves I might mention the Muzio Gambit (a vriation of the King's Gambit) where Muzio's contribution was seeing it played, and the Damiano Defense where Damiano's contribution was condemning the entire opening as bad for Black. At Smith-Morra still mentions Morra. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis removed

I removed the entire analysis section, but it still remains in the history. The section was giving chessical evaluations too much space, and things like "recommended for Black" are likely to be contested by other sources, and may constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. I think a lot can be added back, but in a different form. As compensation, I wrote up a section about the history, especially Smith and Morra, whom the opening is named after. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section and image

No doubt acceptance of the gambit is most common, but since this is an article on the Smith-Morra overall, the lead should bold the defining line (i.e. stopping at 3.c3) and the diagram should show the position after this move. Going to edit this now. 213.249.135.36 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECO Code

According to the fourth edition of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, ECO [BZ1] is 1. e4 c4 2. F4 and the line 1. e4 c5 2. d4 dd4 3. c3 has ECO code [B20].Cbigorgne (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cbigorgne, do you have a hard copy of ECO B? Would you mind providing a full citation with page number? I can confirm from my electronic copy of the fourth edition that they assign the Morra to B20/04; but this contradicts every indirect source I've seen on the ECO codes, including Chess Informant's own website and recently published issues of Informant (e.g. #112, p. 81, game 91 (Esserman - van Wely, Orlando 2011); #117, p. 149, game 46 (Mons - Naiditsch, Germany 2013), and #118, p. 195, game 45 (Berg-Blomqvist, Goteborg 2013), all of which are listed under B21). I used to have a hard copy of "small ECO" which might help resolve the issue but not anymore. Quite possibly we should list both codes with a note explaining the discrepancy. Cobblet (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the fourth Edition hard copy of ECOB page 172 [B20] we have lines [B20] 04-06 : 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. c3 dc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 ... and page 170, we have : B20 : 1. e4 c5 without 2. f4 (cf. B21) 2. c3 (cf. B22), 2. Nc3 (cf. B23-B26), 2. Nf3 (cf. B27-B99)Cbigorgne (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've noted the discrepancy in the article. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Reference

In the "Morra Gambit Declined" section of the article, the following paragraph occurs:

"The latter has a bad reputation, as square c3 is free for the knight. Still 5...Nf6 (5...e5; 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 e5) 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 Qd6 is likely to transpose to a main line of the Alapin: 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 e6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6."

It is not clear what "the latter" refers to in this paragraph. My guess is that it's a reference to the Scandinavian Formation, but since that variation is no longer last on the list, the term "the latter" no longer makes sense. I thought about rewriting this paragraph myself, but it's not my sentiment, and indeed it's almost an opinion (since there's no citation to support the claim). Therefore I am inclined to simply delete it -- but I will wait, in case anyone has an objection. Thanks and happy editing. Chillowack (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]