Talk:Smith-Morra Gambit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)