Mayhem In The Morra

[Louann Mauffray]

3You also have to know c3-Sicilian Theory, which is what the Morra transposes to 90% of the time when Black declines the gambit. Again, you shouldn't even be studying specific openings, but rather, opening concepts.

I have mayhem in the morra and I think it is an amazing book, perfect difficulty for me I think, and he is a great writer and uses vibrant language. The biggest problem with the opening for a lower rated player is you usually have to either keep black in a tight positional bind even through to the endgame or create some explosive tactics before they unwind and coordinate, otherwise you are just down a pawn. If you are even a little bit inaccurate as white your compensation quickly dissipates.

"... The title might suggest [that The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis] is for beginners, but that is not the case. It does start off with some basic positions, but quickly moves on to much more advanced material including chapters on positional play and techniques of calculation." - IM John Donaldson

Sooner or later any 1.e4 player will need a good line against the Sicilian. Amateur players should avoid the main lines at all costs, so the Morra Gambit (and its cousin 2.c3) are as good as anything else, and certainly more fun than the currently popular lines with 3.Bb5.

First two openings that interested me: French Defense. Queen's Gambit Declined - Exchange Variation, specifically the Minority Attack approach! (A very "positional" idea, going for the backwards c-pawn).

#19

"Irrelevant below master level"

'A pawn is a pawn' - Fischer

At beginner level it does not matter. The pawn is no big deal when the opponent hangs a piece.

Below master level there are defensive players, who can consolidate and then win the endgame with the extra pawn.

#16

"the Morra Gambit (and its cousin 2.c3) are as good as anything else"

++ If black declines the Morra Gambit 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 with 3...d5 or 3...Nf6, then it transposes to the Alapin Variation 2 c3. So from a practical point of view 2 c3 is more efficient than 2 d4. Playing the Morra you have to be prepared to play the Alapin as well, so you can just restrict it to the Alapin. From a theoretical point of view 2 c3 is better as well: it does not lose a pawn and it does not trade a central pawn for a wing pawn as in the Open Sicilian.

here we go again with people parroting grandmasters talking about grandmaster games. at the amateur level, gambits literally decimate! +10% stats, as seen in many top gambits, at the amateur 1600-2000 real world level where this stuff gets played is anything BUT unsound! gambits are where i get all MY ratings points and trying to muddle though foofy positional GM crap (closed/hypermod) is where i lose all my points.

a 7% winning edge in the mainline is outrageous! GM approved boring safe lines WISH they had these numbers! when i knew a bit of theory, maybe 50 lines, i had close to a 90% win rate in smith morra as a 1650, and in about 50 games, my rating wouls have been over 200 points higher if i only played smith morra. i'm getting my butt handed to me regularly now, but plan on booking up with amateur games.

the hannes langrock book has been described as the theory heavy alternative, and esserman's book has been described as more conversational, even entertaining, and emphasizing the ideas behind the opening. if i were to get a book, it would be the hannes langrock one for as much theory to memorize as possible. any positional concepts esserman might try to explain to me would go in one ear and out of the other.

if anyone's interested, i'd be happy to share my "based on 1600-2000 performance" theory trees. there would be a lot of out of book theory in it because people generally don't play grandmaster lines, especially in gambits. in looking at notation for the BDG last night, i saw that one of the 2 lines a GM talked about was something like an 8th most popular sideline. the other line was #1, but that left half a dozen lines amateurs play, but GMs ignore.

i'm surprised that i've been doing very well with the monte carlo french gambit and blackmar diemer via 1.e4 d5 2.e5!? as well, again, theory free. if you're a tactician like me, gambits are one's life blood and the entire reason for playing to begin with.

"Honestly, I think this book is a must-have for anyone who loves chess."

Perhaps, but when reading a chess book I strongly references like the ones to James Bond and Austin Power. After reading your review it's less likely I will buy the book.

Especially now you imply I won't be a chess lover if I don't.

MNb -- I agree: you definitely will not enjoy this book if you start in such a grumpy mood... :-)

As for Loek van Wely: yes, I definitely admire him more for writing that foreword.

I'm not trying to say that the book is above criticism. People have noted some errors in or issues about the book at ChessPublishing forum, and I have joined the conversation there. But for those of us who like to play the Smith-Morra now and then, and who are out to have fun in chess, it is a great book.

I'm not sure how to take being mentioned in a book review. Flattering, but I know how poor my openings are, so being thought of as some sort of authority gives me the shivers.

I don't think 8.Bf4 can really be described as my move anyway, I just played it online in the hope of the trap 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.O-O Nf6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.Qb3 e6 10.Ng5?! Na5 11.Qa4+ b5? 12.Bxb5+ axb5 13.Nxb5 and came unstuck when I tried 10.Ng5 in proper chess. I assume he's focusing more on 9.h3 which is much more sensible.

You have obviously not read the book. Only really strong players understand that the morra is a very good opening, (like the kings gambit giving a pawn away played by spassky who never lost a game with it), the morra has been played by the best for example a few; Bobby, Morphy,Tal Nimzowitsch, Timman. Its because of weak chess players that think that giving a pawn is losing in chess is why its not played so often.

I've been playing the Smith-Morra Gambit (e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3) against the Sicilian defense for about 2 years. I have a tournament coming up in 3 days and I am beginning to doubt if the Smith-Morra would suffice. I like attacks and do not enjoy slow maneuvering play (which is why I do not play queen's pawn). Is there any reason I should change my response to the Sicilian? It seems like 3 days is not enough time to learn the thousands of variations in the Sicilian. And even I understand good play by black means that I am down a pawn for good.

I've been playing the Smith Morra Gambit for about 5 years and am rated around 2000 FIDE currently. I regularly play the Morra(it is my only response against the Sicilian), and my performance with it is usually 100 or more points above my rating. Thus, the Morra definitely can be played against stronger opposition. However, if you are serious about continuing the Morra throughout your chess career, you must buy Mayhem in the Morra by Marc Esserman. Any serious morra player has this book.

I'm rated around 1850 FIDE (approx as converted from the UK system). I play the Morra and it does me just fine - I've drawn against 2000+ players with it and do well against similar rated opponents. So if you enjoy it, play it - professionals excepted that's why we play chess!

Therefore, it depends on what you use chess for; the smith-morra gambit is absolutely working at a 1600 level, it's not like a grandmaster can lose to 2000s by playing the Smith-Morra gambit, although he'd (or she'd) probably have to switch for when playing 2200s.

If you want to be titled, you have to play the main lines (because then you'll never have to switch again, but also there's no risk because it has basically been proven to be sound). I absolutely love Quality Chess's motto: "Tired of getting bad positions? Try the main lines!"

P.s. A good line for black against the smith morra gambit would be the Siberian trap line. Even if white doesn't fall for the Nd4 trap, black can still get a safe position (and the computer evaluates it as 0s).

My experience has been that even stronger players don't like playing against the Smith-Morra because it takes them out of their "book". When the clock is ticking and they have to solve opening problems over the board that they might not be all that familiar with, that's a great equalizer. It takes them out of their comfort zone. If someone's playing the Sicilian, it's a good bet that they know the standard lines. I like using the Grob against mid-range players for the same reason. In a tournament where I had beaten and drawn Experts in the first 2 rounds, I played a Sicilian against a category 1 player in the 3rd round who used a Smith-Morra and won after I got lost in the complications, ruining what had been a good tournament for me. If you're playing against category 1 or better players, that might be a different story, but at the level you indicate, I see no problem with using it, particularly since you have a good working knowledge of it as you indicate.

3a8082e126