Smith-Morra gambit, strong medicine against the Sicilian

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

The Smith-Morra gambit is strong medicine against the Sicilian.

The Sicilian gives normally whining drawn out boring and irritating games.

By investing only one pawn you can rip open the board and get good exciting tactical games.

https://lichess.org/g6ZY3Vsh0BdL

[Offramp]

I agree. I think that The Morra Gambit is the most logical wya for White to play against the Sicilian.

After 1 e4 c5 Black has not improved his development chances at all, whereas White has opened up all his pieces.

I do not know why it is not played at the top level more often.

Perhaps it has been analysed to death. Here is a game from 2011.

[Event "13th Dubai Open"]
[Site "Dubai UAE"]
[Date "2011.04.18"]
[EventDate "2011.04.10"]
[Round "9.35"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Suhrab Semiev"]
[Black "Ali Abedi"]
[ECO "B53"]
[WhiteElo "2406"]
[BlackElo "2159"]
[PlyCount "36"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 e6 6. Bc4 a6
7. a4 Be7 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Rd1 Qc7 11. Bf4 Nh5
12. Be3 Nc6 13. Rac1 Bd7 14. Ba2 Qa5 15. Bd2 Qb6 16. Be3 Qa5
17. Bd2 Qb6 18. Be3 Qa5 1/2-1/2

[William Hyde]

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 12:41:41 PM UTC-5, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> The Smith-Morra gambit is strong medicine against the Sicilian.

Those of us who are not IMs should probably play a lot more in the way of gambits. The Smith-Morra is a reasonable choice. I loved to play the Cochrane against the Petroff, but opportunities for that were rare.

Could be that the reason I am so terrible at tactics (relative to my rating) is that I've almost always played positional openings. Blackburne recommends the Scotch game/Scotch gambit for young players.

>
> The Sicilian gives normally whining drawn out boring and irritating games.

Sacrifice a knight on d5 or e6. Doesn't much matter if it's sound, since you're playing weaker opponents anyway. Most of my Sicilians against weaker opponents never got near the endgame. Against strong opponents, well ... but you're not playing them.

You might want to look at Levy's "Sacrifices in the Sicilian". It's an older book, but the ideas still hold up. I never studied it in detail, but it was fun to browse.


William Hyde

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 11:22:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 12:41:41 PM UTC-5, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > The Smith-Morra gambit is strong medicine against the Sicilian.
>
>
> Those of us who are not IMs should probably play a lot more in the way of gambits.

Bs"d

Exactly. And then especially the more trappy ones.

> The Smith-Morra is a reasonable choice. I loved to play the Cochrane against the Petroff, but opportunities for that were rare.
>
> Could be that the reason I am so terrible at tactics (relative to my rating) is that I've almost always played positional openings. Blackburne recommends the Scotch game/Scotch gambit for young players.

Tactics are the heart of the game. I hate slow positional games such as the Sicilian causes. That's why a mean gambit to rip open the position is necessary.

If your tactics are bad, get the book "Rapid Chess Improvement" of the La Maza, en get CT-Art. I have 3.0. I heard 4.0 is bad, but they are now I think up to 7.0 or something.
Anyway, that teaches you tactics, and with that you win games.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rapid-Chess-Improvement-A-Study-Plan-for-Adult-Players-by-De-la-Maza-New/173960089167?epid=95220425&hash=item2880d44e4f:i:173960089167

>
> >
> > The Sicilian gives normally whining drawn out boring and irritating games.
>
> Sacrifice a knight on d5 or e6. Doesn't much matter if it's sound, since you're playing weaker opponents anyway.

Yes, I play weaker opponents, but the idea is that I win. Sacrificing pieces left and right might hamper that goal.

Anyway, I hold that it is always better to sacrifice the pieces of the opponent.

> Most of my Sicilians against weaker opponents never got near the endgame. > Against strong opponents, well ... but you're not playing them.

I'm not a masochist.

> You might want to look at Levy's "Sacrifices in the Sicilian". It's an older book, but the ideas still hold up. I never studied it in detail, but it was fun to browse.

I'm cool with the Smith-Morra. Played one an hour ago against a 1731. You can't call that a weakling or beginner. Slaughtered him. The average rating on Lichess is about 1550, so my opponent was almost 200 points above that. OK, I was slightly higher than him, but I don't play weaklings. I don't want it to get boring.

Sacrificing a pawn, no problem. But a whole piece, I'm not comfortable with that. Except for the Fried Liver of course.

I LOVE Fried Livers!

For the rest I try to guard my pieces well, but sometimes that goes horribly wrong.

Anyway, opening traps rule!

http://tiny.cc/two-plus-two

[Offramp]

That's a good idea. Nd5 or Nxe6 nearly always give 2 pawns and a strong attack.

[Offramp]

On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 22:12:29 UTC, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:

> I LOVE Fried Livers!

Not kasher!

In the King's Gambit I've noticed that White should give up a piece as soon as possible, preferably on f7. Failure to do so can mean that White is overrun. The pawn on f4 is very strong (for a pawn), and it crimps white in the kingside.

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 12:33:26 PM UTC+2, Offramp wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 22:12:29 UTC, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I LOVE Fried Livers!
>
> Not kasher!

Bs"d

If those livers are from kosher animals which are slaughtered kosher, then they are kosher. No problem.

> In the King's Gambit I've noticed that White should give up a piece as soon as possible, preferably on f7. Failure to do so can mean that White is overrun. The pawn on f4 is very strong (for a pawn), and it crimps white in the kingside.

I always answer the king's gambit with Falkbeer's counter gambit. And then I choose if possible the continuation of Paul Morphy. You give away a second pawn, and you get a fantastic game.

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

Another position in which a horse sacrifice seems to be very promising is in the four horses game.

https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/tour/breeze.htm

http://tiny.cc/extr-chess

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

Once in my life I have played the Cochrane gambit. That was the last time. It happened about 30 or 35 years ago.

One of the first times I went to the chess club I got clobbered with the Fried Liver. I thought "What is this?" I needed to know more about that one, so a bought a Dutch book "150 Horse Sacrifices on f7" and that had a big section on the Fried Liver. But there I also found the Cochrane gambit. I tried it once, got nowhere with it, was basically playing with a horse less, and lost.
That's not for me.

But I love the Fried Liver, especially with that improvement made to it by Bobby Fisher.

http://tiny.cc/enemy-mistake

[William Hyde]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 5:12:29 PM UTC-5, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 11:22:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 12:41:41 PM UTC-5, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > The Smith-Morra gambit is strong medicine against the Sicilian.
> >
> >
> > Those of us who are not IMs should probably play a lot more in the way of gambits.
>
> Bs"d
>
> Exactly. And then especially the more trappy ones.
>
> > The Smith-Morra is a reasonable choice. I loved to play the Cochrane against the Petroff, but opportunities for that were rare.
> >
> > Could be that the reason I am so terrible at tactics (relative to my rating) is that I've almost always played positional openings. Blackburne recommends the Scotch game/Scotch gambit for young players.
>
> Tactics are the heart of the game. I hate slow positional games such as the Sicilian causes. That's why a mean gambit to rip open the position is necessary.
>
> If your tactics are bad, get the book "Rapid Chess Improvement" of the La Maza, en get CT-Art. I have 3.0. I heard 4.0 is bad, but they are now I think up to 7.0 or something.
> Anyway, that teaches you tactics, and with that you win games.

Not me. Mostly I just squeezed positionally to the point that the winning tactics became obvious or I got a won endgame. Even though I generally opened 1Nf3 or 1c4, I won many of these games with king side attacks.

I am tactically better now then when I was an active tournament player, entirely because I am too lazy to set up a chessboard and pieces, and read chessbooks blindfold. That helps a lot with tactics. It's a pity I didn't get so lazy earlier.

At any rate, at my age it's all about controlling the decline, not climbing higher.

>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rapid-Chess-Improvement-A-Study-Plan-for-Adult-Players-by-De-la-Maza-New/173960089167?epid=95220425&hash=item2880d44e4f:i:173960089167
> >
> > >
> > > The Sicilian gives normally whining drawn out boring and irritating games.
> >
> > Sacrifice a knight on d5 or e6. Doesn't much matter if it's sound, since you're playing weaker opponents anyway.
>
> Yes, I play weaker opponents, but the idea is that I win. Sacrificing pieces left and right might hamper that goal.

These sacrifices are quite difficult to deal with. If White is aware of the various attacking ideas and black is not, even an unsound sac on e6 will generally win.

In any even you generally get two pawns for it, so it' not a whole piece.

>
> Anyway, I hold that it is always better to sacrifice the pieces of the opponent.

Well, if you're going to get all rational on me ...

>
> > Most of my Sicilians against weaker opponents never got near the endgame. > Against strong opponents, well ... but you're not playing them.
>
> I'm not a masochist.
>
> > You might want to look at Levy's "Sacrifices in the Sicilian". It's an older book, but the ideas still hold up. I never studied it in detail, but it was fun to browse.
>
> I'm cool with the Smith-Morra. Played one an hour ago against a 1731. You can't call that a weakling or beginner. Slaughtered him. The average rating on Lichess is about 1550, so my opponent was almost 200 points above that. OK, I was slightly higher than him, but I don't play weaklings. I don't want it to get boring.
>
> Sacrificing a pawn, no problem. But a whole piece, I'm not comfortable with that.

It's the next logical step for you. People RESPECT someone who sacrifices a piece. That respect is often worth a pawn or two all by itself.

William Hyde

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 10:25:29 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:

> > Anyway, that teaches you tactics, and with that you win games.
>
> Not me. Mostly I just squeezed positionally to the point that the winning tactics became obvious or I got a won endgame. Even though I generally opened 1Nf3 or 1c4, I won many of these games with king side attacks.

Bs"d

You can do one and also the other. Just continue your positionally play, but learn some tactics on top of it. Your rating will go up, and you get more enjoyment out of your games.

> I am tactically better now then when I was an active tournament player, entirely because I am too lazy to set up a chessboard and pieces, and read chessbooks blindfold. That helps a lot with tactics. It's a pity I didn't get so lazy earlier.

And you can get even better tactially. Why not? You got something else to do?

> At any rate, at my age it's all about controlling the decline, not climbing higher.

By learning tactics you exercise your mind, and you keep it young and supple longer. That apart from the fact that your rating will go up.

On the other hand, if you're allready on an advanced age, maybe it's time to start preparing for the world to come, and make peace with God.

That's also important.

Do you think there are chess sets in heaven?

> > Yes, I play weaker opponents, but the idea is that I win. Sacrificing pieces left and right might hamper that goal.
>
> These sacrifices are quite difficult to deal with. If White is aware of the various attacking ideas and black is not, even an unsound sac on e6 will generally win.
>
> In any even you generally get two pawns for it, so it' not a whole piece.
>
> >
> > Anyway, I hold that it is always better to sacrifice the pieces of the opponent.
>
> Well, if you're going to get all rational on me ...
>
> >
> > > Most of my Sicilians against weaker opponents never got near the endgame. > Against strong opponents, well ... but you're not playing them.
> >
> > I'm not a masochist.
> >
> > > You might want to look at Levy's "Sacrifices in the Sicilian". It's an older book, but the ideas still hold up. I never studied it in detail, but it was fun to browse.
> >
> > I'm cool with the Smith-Morra. Played one an hour ago against a 1731. You can't call that a weakling or beginner. Slaughtered him. The average rating on Lichess is about 1550, so my opponent was almost 200 points above that. OK, I was slightly higher than him, but I don't play weaklings. I don't want it to get boring.
> >
> > Sacrificing a pawn, no problem. But a whole piece, I'm not comfortable with that.
>
> It's the next logical step for you. People RESPECT someone who sacrifices a piece. That respect is often worth a pawn or two all by itself.

People respect someone who beats them even more. People are very impressed by someone who beats them in 10 moves or less.

And those flabbergasted expressions on their faces, that's worth A LOT.

I walked in the chess club a while ago, somebody challenged me to a game, I played the Blackburn-Shilling against him, the most common variation ending in smothered mate on move 7, and the guy looked at me with so much awe in his eyes the rest of the evening... :)

THAT is fun!

And something like that mate in 5 that I played, sacrificing my queen, and delivering a smothered mate, that would be impossible if I hadn't learned it from a book.

Things like that make the study worth while.

http://tiny.cc/bad-chess-day

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:41:41 AM UTC-7, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Sicilian gives normally whining drawn out boring and irritating games.

> By investing only one pawn you can rip open the board and get good exciting tactical games.

And here I thought that the Sicilian basically refuted 1. e4, because it led to
tactical games of difficulty in which black had many winning chances - unlike the
classical 1. e4 games where white's advantage generally continued on.

If one wants to survive against a stronger player, it sounds like the Smith-
Morra gambit just makes things worse. Instead, the answer is to avoid the
Sicilian with 1. d4.

John Savard

[The Horny Goat]

Sacrifices in the Sicilian IS a great book.

That said if your opponent is so much weaker than you why do you need
to sacrifice material when a clear win is not in view? That type of
opponent you can usually finagle into making positional concessions
that so often lead to gain of material.

With the greatest of respect there are a LOT of us who would have
liked to play like Tal but few of us remotely have his talent or even
close. There are lots of good books on tactics but the ones I like
most are the ones with tactical quizzes at the end of the book to test
oneself on.

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

A wise man just doesn't play against stronger players. That is the highest folly. Unless of course you enjoy losing.

And as the saying goes: d4 is for sissies. Closed games like d4 and the Sicilian are boring and stupid.

http://tiny.cc/mate-end

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

Most games are won with tactics. If you want to learn tactics, CT-Art is the way to go.
I have 3.0, heard that 4.0 is bad, but there are many newer editions on the market. But for me 3.0 works fine.

Talking about sacrifices, yesterday I sacrificed a full rook. Strange thing was, the opponent didn't take it. Didn't even play another move. Just resigned.
Bit of an anti-climax. One moment you are engrossed in an exciting game, next moment nothing. You're left with a feeling of bereavement. Anyway, also in that aspect chess is just like life; it can be over any second.

But still, for once you decide to sacrifice something, in this case a fat rook, and the opponent walks out on you. Guess he didn't like the sacrifice.

Here it is: https://lichess.org/EDaPH3AlZolf

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

Thank God for the Smith-Morra gambit.

Just had another one who had the audicity to play the Sicilian against me, so I let the Smith-Morra loose on him.

He reacted in very weird way, and he didn't make it past move 7.

That'll teach him.

https://lichess.org/vwFUPcejcDI0

[Offramp]

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 21:34:28 UTC, nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:

> https://lichess.org/vwFUPcejcDI0

It took nerve to play Bf1xd3-c4. Your opponent should have thought: Why is he wasting a tempo? What has he got in mind?

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

He had nothing developed except for one horse. There was nothing he could do. And that bishop was doing nothing on d3.

It's amazing how there is no defense at all after I played Qd5.

http://tiny.cc/reason-succes-MC

[nastyho...@gmail.com]

Bs"d

Sacrifices are clearly not my strong point. Before, I sacrificed a castle, the opponent didn't want to take it.

Now I sacrificed a horse, and the opponent had no choice, he HAD to take it.

Done deal, you would say.

But no, also this time he just resigned.

https://lichess.org/mAXeeAxX2xXw

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

I stopped playing the Morra gambit against the sicilian. I don't like the positions I get out of it. Lost too many games with it.

I'm done with Morra.

https://tinyurl.com/Bot-on-Karpov

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

Also, I found something much more effective against the Sicilian.

https://tinyurl.com/GM-not-normal

[The Horny Goat]

Well that >IS< one of the better reasons to switch openings. :)

On a more serious note when studying openings you have to know what
kind of middle games you play well and are comfortable with.

Normally if I get good development and a position I'm comfy with in
the middle game I'm happy especially as black

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!

I used to be really pissed when after my e4 the enemy answered c5, but now I start to smile when I see that. You get really good interesting games with the Grand Prix Attack. And, like the name implies, you really get to attack the enemy. No whining closed games, you get a frontal attack on his king side. And that's where the king is.... In the rare case that he sees the trouble coming, and castles (not 'rooks') queen side, he then already messed up his castling position because of that c5, and you get also there easy attacks. It works GREAT!

Here is a freshly played game against an 1889: https://lichess.org/OjVMO4Y82lgQ

http://tinyurl.com/pin-sword

[William Hyde]

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:57:42 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!

When the Grand Prix attack was new, IM Lawrence Day played it often, beating GMs with
it.

I tried it against a 2400 player and got decent attacking chances as he wasn't at all
an openings expert. But then, he was 2400 for a reason as the rest of the game showed clearly (this was at slow time controls - 40/2.5).

>
> I used to be really pissed when after my e4 the enemy answered c5, but now I start to smile when I see that. You get really good interesting games with the Grand Prix Attack.

If you ever get tired of the GP attack there's always the wing gambit. I faced it in my
second tournament (don't ask me why I played the Sicilian that day, I was a French
defense type at the time) and didn't last long at all. Of course, he was 500 points
higher and could probably have won with 1h4.

> And, like the name implies, you really get to attack the enemy. No whining closed games,

Technically most Sicilians are semi-open games, except for, obviously the Closed Sicilian,
which very often features king-side attacks by white (e.g. several games in Fischer's book) The Sicilian is an unbalanced game, white tends to get a king-side attack, black gets more subtle benefits. They should equalize but in my experience the white side is easier to play.

But when you meet a Sicilian player who really knows his stuff, watch out. Your Grand Prix
will turn into a race with broken down go-karts.

William Hyde

[Eli Kesef]

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:57:42 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!
> When the Grand Prix attack was new, IM Lawrence Day played it often, beating GMs with
> it.

Bs"d

I read in my Mammoth Book of Chess that when it was first discovered, black players often went mate before move 25. The point is, nowadays, everybody and his mother, are playing the Sicilian. And almost non of 'm knows anything about the Grand Prix Attack.
Me neither, that's why I bought these two books: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/u9kAAOSwAcFf~FbN/s-l400.jpg
And this one: https://www.denksportkampioen.be/uploads/4/0/2/7/40273869/s859343698545713665_p472_i1_w327.jpeg
Just ordered them the other day, might take a while before they arrive here, but now already, without any serious theoretical knowledge, I beat one after the other with it.
Of course I play mostly against weaker opponents, but if you follow the normal line, you get really boring whining games. The GPA solves the problem, and it's a killer.
Can't wait to get those books, then it should get even worse for the opponents.

> I tried it against a 2400 player and got decent attacking chances as he wasn't at all
> an openings expert. But then, he was 2400 for a reason as the rest of the game showed clearly (this was at slow time controls - 40/2.5).

I played one time a grandmaster, and that was the last time. It was a simultaneous game, him against 30 others. He looked at the board for half a second, moved, and walked on to the next board. He did that with all the boards, except for mine. When he came at my board, he stopped, planted his hands on the table, and looked. And looked. And kept on looking. For minutes. And then moved. And then all the other boards, look half a second, move, and next one. Not so my board. The first 10-15 moves, he stopped, made himself comfortable, and looked and looked at my board.
In the beginning I was very pleased with all that attention I was getting, however, that feeling quickly disappeared when I was the first one of the 30 players to go mate on move 17.

I learned my lesson. Never played a GM again.

Never again!

It took me many years to figure out what happened there. Finally I figured it out.

I had been betrayed. Ratted out. I used to play in that time on a chess club in the same village where that particular GM (Jeroen Piket) grew up.
And of course, there on the club, like here, I was preaching the gospel of the opening traps, to everybody who wanted to hear it, and to a lot more who didn’t want to hear it. Like here.
I remember on that club there, one guy told me: “Those traps of yours; the don’t work in the real world!” I just kept quiet, I knew better.
Then that guy one time challenged me to a game. He had white, and started with an Italian opening. (guici piano or something) So after his bishop went to c4, I threw my horse forward to d4, setting the Blackburn-Shilling trap. He fell for it, his horse took my pawn on e5, and at that point I told him: “You just fell in a trap, and now you are going to lose at least one piece.” I could easily tell him that, because he passed the point of no return, and he was done for.
He looked at the position, him having a double attack on f7, me only a horse in a useless place in the middle of the board, and he said: “Show me!”
I moved my queen to g5.
He looked and said: “It looks to me that YOU are going to lose a piece!” and he planted his horse on f7, thereby forking my queen and castle.
My queen smacked in on g2, and, as usual, on move 7, out of the blue, I got him with a smothered mate.
Then I asked him: “Did you say that my traps don’t work in the real world?”

Boy, he looked so shocked and depressed….

And of course, that was not the only time that players fell victim to my trappy opening repertoire. It got to the point that if I blundered away a pawn in the opening, they didn’t dare to take it, they were so afraid of my traps.

And then, after a long time, it dawned upon me, that the only explanation of that weird behavior of the GM, who, if I’m not mistaken, started out on that self same chess club, had been forewarned by somebody of that club, for my opening traps.

Anyway, like I said; I learned my lesson, GM’s are to be avoided like the plague.

Only weaker opponents for me.

> > I used to be really pissed when after my e4 the enemy answered c5, but now I start to smile when I see that. You get really good interesting games with the Grand Prix Attack.
> If you ever get tired of the GP attack there's always the wing gambit. I faced it in my
> second tournament (don't ask me why I played the Sicilian that day, I was a French
> defense type at the time) and didn't last long at all. Of course, he was 500 points
> higher and could probably have won with 1h4.
> > And, like the name implies, you really get to attack the enemy. No whining closed games,
> Technically most Sicilians are semi-open games, except for, obviously the Closed Sicilian,
> which very often features king-side attacks by white (e.g. several games in Fischer's book) The Sicilian is an unbalanced game, white tends to get a king-side attack, black gets more subtle benefits. They should equalize but in my experience the white side is easier to play.
>
> But when you meet a Sicilian player who really knows his stuff, watch out. Your Grand Prix
> will turn into a race with broken down go-karts.

Magnus Carlsen, in his younger days, used to play the GPA, with a lot of success. Of course there are no guarantees, but it's not a bad opening. And most people don't know much theory anyway.

It works great! And hopefully, when I get those books, it will work even better. :)

https://tinyurl.com/calm-win

[Ken Blake]

On 7/25/2021 3:01 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:57:42 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> > Bs"d
>> >
>> > I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!
>> When the Grand Prix attack was new, IM Lawrence Day played it often, beating GMs with
>> it.
>
> Bs"d
>
> I read in my Mammoth Book of Chess that when it was first discovered, black players often went mate before move 25. The point is, nowadays, everybody and his mother, are playing the Sicilian. And almost non of 'm knows anything about the Grand Prix Attack.
> Me neither, that's why I bought these two books: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/u9kAAOSwAcFf~FbN/s-l400.jpg
> And this one: https://www.denksportkampioen.be/uploads/4/0/2/7/40273869/s859343698545713665_p472_i1_w327.jpeg
> Just ordered them the other day, might take a while before they arrive here, but now already, without any serious theoretical knowledge, I beat one after the other with it.
> Of course I play mostly against weaker opponents, but if you follow the normal line, you get really boring whining games. The GPA solves the problem, and it's a killer.
> Can't wait to get those books, then it should get even worse for the opponents.
>
>> I tried it against a 2400 player and got decent attacking chances as he wasn't at all
>> an openings expert. But then, he was 2400 for a reason as the rest of the game showed clearly (this was at slow time controls - 40/2.5).
>
> I played one time a grandmaster, and that was the last time. It was a simultaneous game, him against 30 others. He looked at the board for half a second, moved, and walked on to the next board. He did that with all the boards, except for mine. When he came at my board, he stopped, planted his hands on the table, and looked. And looked. And kept on looking. For minutes. And then moved. And then all the other boards, look half a second, move, and next one. Not so my board. The first 10-15 moves, he stopped, made himself comfortable, and looked and looked at my board.
> In the beginning I was very pleased with all that attention I was getting, however, that feeling quickly disappeared when I was the first one of the 30 players to go mate on move 17.
>
> I learned my lesson. Never played a GM again.

I've played grandmasters several times: two in simultaneouses:
Reshevevsky (I lost) Euwe (I drew). I also played several other: Fisher,
Lombardy, Mednis, Bisguier. I played many times against Fischer and
usually won (but that was was when he voung, before he was a
grandmaster). I can't remember for sure, but I think I lost all my other
games against grandmasters, even when we played before they were
grandmasters.



--
Ken

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 6:01:52 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:57:42 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!
> > When the Grand Prix attack was new, IM Lawrence Day played it often, beating GMs with
> > it.
> Bs"d
>
> I read in my Mammoth Book of Chess that when it was first discovered, black players often went mate before move 25. The point is, nowadays, everybody and his mother, are playing the Sicilian. And almost non of 'm knows anything about the Grand Prix Attack.
> Me neither, that's why I bought these two books: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/u9kAAOSwAcFf~FbN/s-l400.jpg
> And this one: https://www.denksportkampioen.be/uploads/4/0/2/7/40273869/s859343698545713665_p472_i1_w327.jpeg
> Just ordered them the other day, might take a while before they arrive here, but now already, without any serious theoretical knowledge, I beat one after the other with it.
> Of course I play mostly against weaker opponents, but if you follow the normal line, you get really boring whining games.

This really confuses me. Against weaker opponents white almost always gets a kingside
attack in this opening. Back when I was 2100 (speed) I played a series of games against
a 1900 who specialized in the Sicilian. Few of my games with white lasted 35 moves,
most ended with kingside attacks, often featuring the Nd5 or somethingxe6 sacs
mentioned earlier.

That's no reason not to play the GPA. Always play what feels right for you. But against
weaker players the Sozin, Richter-Rauzer and Keres attack are also killers. And they work
pretty well against strong players too. Even Weaver Adams' 6h3 line works (see Fischer-Bolbochan, I think).

The GPA solves the problem, and it's a killer.
> Can't wait to get those books, then it should get even worse for the opponents.
> > I tried it against a 2400 player and got decent attacking chances as he wasn't at all
> > an openings expert. But then, he was 2400 for a reason as the rest of the game showed clearly (this was at slow time controls - 40/2.5).
> I played one time a grandmaster, and that was the last time.

I kept trying with the above. I lost the first three tournament games, but finally
won the fourth with a sacrificial attack from the black side of a QGD - not
exactly a trappy opening. Learned a lot about chess in the process.

>It was a simultaneous game, him against 30 others. He looked at the board for half a second, moved, and walked on to the next board. He did that with all the boards, except for mine. When he came at my board, he stopped, planted his hands on the table, and looked. And looked. And kept on looking. For minutes. And then moved. And then all the other boards, look half a second, move, and next one. Not so my board. The first 10-15 moves, he stopped, made himself comfortable, and looked and looked at my board.

Reputations spread. When I was more active I knew a lot about players I had never
met. It's embarrassing for a GM to walk into an opening trap, and having heard about
you I suspect he was going to make sure it didn't happen to him.

When I was in a reserve tournament someone actually prepared a line against the
opening I was playing (bulletins were published so he could see what I was playing)
But, though we never had met before, I knew he would prepare something, because I knew about him. So I prepared to deviate earlier. And it worked.


William Hyde

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

You beat Euwe and Fisher, the latter even many times? Wow! Even when he was a youngster, it is something to write home about.

Well done!

https://tinyurl.com/4k-with-u

[Eli Kesef]

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 1:57:48 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 6:01:52 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:57:42 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > Bs"d
> > > >
> > > > I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!
> > > When the Grand Prix attack was new, IM Lawrence Day played it often, beating GMs with
> > > it.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > I read in my Mammoth Book of Chess that when it was first discovered, black players often went mate before move 25. The point is, nowadays, everybody and his mother, are playing the Sicilian. And almost non of 'm knows anything about the Grand Prix Attack.
> > Me neither, that's why I bought these two books: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/u9kAAOSwAcFf~FbN/s-l400.jpg
> > And this one: https://www.denksportkampioen.be/uploads/4/0/2/7/40273869/s859343698545713665_p472_i1_w327.jpeg
> > Just ordered them the other day, might take a while before they arrive here, but now already, without any serious theoretical knowledge, I beat one after the other with it.
> > Of course I play mostly against weaker opponents, but if you follow the normal line, you get really boring whining games.
> This really confuses me. Against weaker opponents white almost always gets a kingside
> attack in this opening. Back when I was 2100 (speed) I played a series of games against
> a 1900 who specialized in the Sicilian. Few of my games with white lasted 35 moves,
> most ended with kingside attacks, often featuring the Nd5 or somethingxe6 sacs
> mentioned earlier.

Bs"d

I have this book: https://www.chessset.com/assets/images/7%20Ways%20to%20smash%20the%20sicilian.jpg but never studied it much, because I hated the Sicilian. It's about sacrifices in the Sicilian. But I have bad experiences with sacrificing my pieces, so now I try to only sacrifice the pieces of the opponent.
The Morra-gambit has a nice trap in it, with which I did make a few victims, but the vast majority of time I ended up with positions I hated, with a pawn less. So exit the Morra-gambit.

> That's no reason not to play the GPA. Always play what feels right for you. But against
> weaker players the Sozin, Richter-Rauzer and Keres attack are also killers. And they work
> pretty well against strong players too. Even Weaver Adams' 6h3 line works (see Fischer-Bolbochan, I think).

I read that black has the best results against white with the Sicilian. I can imagine why, because you get those rotten closed positions, a long time nothing is really happening on the board but shoving your pieces positionally around, and the benefit of the first move totally gets lost.

And I hate those kind of games.

> The GPA solves the problem, and it's a killer.
> > Can't wait to get those books, then it should get even worse for the opponents.
> > > I tried it against a 2400 player and got decent attacking chances as he wasn't at all
> > > an openings expert. But then, he was 2400 for a reason as the rest of the game showed clearly (this was at slow time controls - 40/2.5).
> > I played one time a grandmaster, and that was the last time.
> I kept trying with the above. I lost the first three tournament games, but finally
> won the fourth with a sacrificial attack from the black side of a QGD - not
> exactly a trappy opening. Learned a lot about chess in the process.
> >It was a simultaneous game, him against 30 others. He looked at the board for half a second, moved, and walked on to the next board. He did that with all the boards, except for mine. When he came at my board, he stopped, planted his hands on the table, and looked. And looked. And kept on looking. For minutes. And then moved. And then all the other boards, look half a second, move, and next one. Not so my board. The first 10-15 moves, he stopped, made himself comfortable, and looked and looked at my board.
> Reputations spread. When I was more active I knew a lot about players I had never
> met. It's embarrassing for a GM to walk into an opening trap, and having heard about
> you I suspect he was going to make sure it didn't happen to him.

I think it is the only explanation for that weird behavior. Never got any conformation of it, nobody ever told me who warned him for me, but I'm about 99,9% sure that's what must have happened.

> When I was in a reserve tournament someone actually prepared a line against the
> opening I was playing (bulletins were published so he could see what I was playing)
> But, though we never had met before, I knew he would prepare something, because I knew about him. So I prepared to deviate earlier. And it worked.

A good preparation is half the win. I can't understand why not more people specialize in opening traps. Point one: They are killers, point two: It is so unbelievably much fun when you see somebody stepping in a trap!

The fun part of the Blackburn-Shilling, one of the most well known opening traps, is that it has a trap after the trap. Meaning, if they know the trap, and don't fall for it, then often times, there is another trap you can play after that one.
Last Saturday, when I was going over old games played on FICS, I looked for those. I'm in the process of printing out thousands of games I played on FICS, and I have now 5 or 6 binders full of 'm. I still have hundreds of those games in my email, waiting to be printed. Mind you, I only print out the winning games. The rest... Well, some things are best forgotten. ASAP.
Better for my mental health.
On Saturday's I go over these old games, rate them, and as most are not very remarkable, I forget about them. But once in a while you come upon a jewel, and that's what you are doing it for. So last Saturday I was looking for when the enemy avoided the main trap, only to later lose his queen or a castle to a later trap. In one binder I found 6 occurrences of that trap. It is so much fun.... (once I get started on opening traps it's hard to stop) :D

Anyway, I hate the Sicilian a lot less now I'm getting experienced with the GPA.

https://tinyurl.com/more-imp

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

And even to have known and played against that legend, that's already quite something.

I think he was the best ever. The distance between him and nr 2 was bigger than with any other world champion. What he did, like crushing several candidates with 6-0, winning the American championship with 11-0, those stunts have never been repeated, and probably never will be.

He was a class apart.

Take Kasparov, by some considered the best, he was in no time 5-0 behind against Karpov, and after about a 100 games against Karpov the overal difference between them was one point. Bobby crushed Spassky.
No comparison.

https://tinyurl.com/ever-play-BF

[Ken Blake]

No, never. I only played against him once, in a simultaneous he gave. We
drew. It was around 1957, so he was well past his prime.

> and Fisher, the latter even many times? Wow! Even when he was a youngster, it is something to write home about.

Not really. We played many offhand games at the Manhattan Chess Club,
and I won almost all of them. I was much stronger than he was then; I
was around 2000 and he was around 1400.

We only played in tournaments twice. We drew once, and I lost once (the
US junior championship in 1956). I had the misfortune of thinking I was
lost and resigning in a pretty even position. He went on to win the
tournament and I tied for fifth. We were around the same strength then.

>> Well done!
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/4k-with-u
>
> Bs"d
>
> And even to have known and played against that legend, that's already quite something.

I was just a few years older than him, so we played against each other a
lot at the Manhattan Chess Club; I think he joined the club when he was
11. I knew him fairly well. I was a member of both the Manhattan and
Marshall Chess Clubs, and I knew, at least slightly, almost all the
strong players in the US. Some I knew well, like Fisher and Lombardy.

I don't play at all these days. I've played very few games since 1959.

> I think he was the best ever.

Maybe. You're not the only one to think that, but there's no way to know
something like that for sure. He never played against any of today's
great grandmasters, and it's nothing more than a guess as to how he
would do against them.

The same is true of Morphy. He was head and shoulders better than anyone
else of his day, but how would he do today, even if he first spent a
year or two studying all of today's opening theory? Nobody knows, and
nobody can know.

> The distance between him and nr 2 was bigger than with any other world champion. What he did, like crushing several candidates with 6-0,
> winning the American championship with 11-0, those stunts have never been repeated, and probably never will be.
>
> He was a class apart.
>
> Take Kasparov, by some considered the best, he was in no time 5-0 behind against Karpov, and after about a 100 games against Karpov the overal difference between them was one point. Bobby crushed Spassky.
> No comparison.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ever-play-BF
>

--
Ken

[William Hyde]

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 2:29:37 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 1:57:48 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 6:01:52 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:57:42 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > > Bs"d
> > > > >
> > > > > I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!

> A good preparation is half the win. I can't understand why not more people specialize in opening traps.

Careful what you wish for. The more people that specialize in opening traps, the better they will
be known.

> Point one: They are killers,

Not against strong players. You prefer to play weaker players, I prefer to play stronger
ones. I won a couple of OTB events where I was the strongest player. It was pleasant,
but I got far more fun beating a 2000 player when I was 1555, and drawing with an
IM (over 2300) the next round.

I enjoy endgames and "closed" positions (note again, the Sicilian is generally not closed, but
semi-open, try 1d4 if you want closed positions you will really hate - though 1d4 can also
lead to attacking games, ask Marshall or Denker).

My feelings are those of Larsen "An opening trap will only beat someone you would have
beaten anyway". I admit I occasionally play the Cochrane gambit (1e4 e5 2Nf3 Nf6, 3Nxe5 d6
4Nxf7, but this is not a trap, it's a recognized if controversial line. I've never really studied
it, though. White's moves after the sacrifice are pretty natural.

point two: It is so unbelievably much fun when you see somebody stepping in a trap!

The whole point of chess is to enjoy ourselves, and you seem to be doing this quite well. It also
seem to me that if improving one's game is the real objective, it is still best to play what you
like and learn that.

William Hyde

[Eli Kesef]

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:34:15 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 2:29:37 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 1:57:48 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 6:01:52 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:57:42 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > > > Bs"d
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I decided that I really didn't like the Smith-Morra gambit. So I switched to the Grand Prix attack, and I positively LOVE it!
> > A good preparation is half the win. I can't understand why not more people specialize in opening traps.
> Careful what you wish for. The more people that specialize in opening traps, the better they will
> be known.
> > Point one: They are killers,
> Not against strong players.

Bs"d

Of course not, they know them, and if they don't know them, they just see right trough it. But against people on my level, they work great. Well, not all the time of course, but I bag a lot of victims with 'm.
I remember on FICS, I was playing Team League, I was part of a group, playing other groups. Then one time I had to play a strong player, and my team mates warned me for him. I checked him out, and his all time high score was higher then mine, so he was probably better than I was. In the game, he had white, and he started with d4, so I answered e5, the feared Englund gambit. And then it happened, the first and only time in my Team League time, he fell in the trap, and I mated him on move 8. With my team mates and his team mates watching the game.
Does it get any better than this? LOL!

He promptly filed a complaint with the referees for computer abuse, he couldn't believe what had happened to him. The referee looked at the game and said: "I can't imaging anybody playing the Englund gambit, and not knowing this trap. Good game!"
And that was it.

I did try to catch that GM in the simul in a trap, I went for the Stafford gambit, and of course, I got nowhere, and got routed in 17 moves.

But now I think about it, in my books there are MANY examples of GM's falling in traps. A good example is GM Reshevsky, 20 years champion of America, who met in the US championship a 14 year old boy, named Bobby Fischer. Bobby loved to read Russian chess literature, he learned himself Russian to read it, and Sammy couldn’t and didn’t, and there Bobby picked up a beautiful trap which he released on Sammy. On move 10 Bobby slaughtered him, and Sammy had to give his queen for a bishop and a horse. He played on to more than 40 moves, but the game had been decided on move 10. Here is that game: https://lichess.org/video/0qVYC4sa1Pg

But my trappy books give many examples of GM’s falling for traps, so it is not impossible.

Some examples: GM Bottvinnik - GM Spielman, Moscow 1935, GM Adorjan - GM Spasski Toluca 1982, GM Kotov - GM Petrosian Moscow 1949.

So bagging a GM with a good trap is not impossible.

https://tinyurl.com/Mac-Orlan

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

The Grand Prix Attack did it again. A 1900 went down in flames in only 17 moves: https://lichess.org/Q2xPahJv2Fz3
I REALLY hate playing a 1900. I think even 1800's are too strong for me, but what can I do? I'm a little over 1900 myself now, and then I'm being paired with those unpleasantly high rated players. The days of being able to set the search settings for opponents maximum 200 points below you, are over.
That's horrible, but that's the way it is.

Anyway, the enemy overlooked a simple pin, and would have gone mate on move 18, the only thing that spared him that disconcertment was him resigning on move 17.

https://tinyurl.com/pin-mighty

[William Hyde]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 7:25:00 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> The Grand Prix Attack did it again. A 1900 went down in flames in only 17 moves: https://lichess.org/Q2xPahJv2Fz3

He must have had someone else playing on his account to boost his rating to 1900. Don't hesitate to
play him again.

His concept of counterattack seems to be to defend, and his concept of defense is to weaken
himself and trade off his defending pieces. I played a game like that once, many years ago.
Didn't win. Didn't draw.

> I REALLY hate playing a 1900. I think even 1800's are too strong for me, but what can I do? I'm a little over 1900 myself now, and then I'm being paired with those unpleasantly high rated players. The days of being able to set the search settings for opponents maximum 200 points below you, are over.
> That's horrible, but that's the way it is.
>
> Anyway, the enemy overlooked a simple pin,

The blunder shortened the agony. He'd already done all the hard work of losing.

William Hyde

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

Got my books in the mail about the Grand Prix. Kind of depressing. It is mainly GM games, who play the GPA. Judith Polgar beat Topalev with the GPA. When I play over a game like that, I start to realize how rotten my own play is, and that in chess (as in many other aspects in life) I'm like a blind man groping around in the darkness.

And that doesn't make me happy.

It does give me better understanding how it is possible that a GM wipes out 30 club players in a simultaneous display. GM's are like aliens, with superpowers.

It also strengthens me in conviction that GM's should be avoided like the plague.

But I do get some good things from the books, and I think my GPA is improving, and that's what it's all about.

https://tinyurl.com/GM-not-normal

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 8:33:46 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> Got my books in the mail about the Grand Prix. Kind of depressing. It is mainly GM games, who play the GPA. Judith Polgar beat Topalev with the GPA. When I play over a game like that, I start to realize how rotten my own play is, and that in chess (as in many other aspects in life) I'm like a blind man groping around in the darkness.
>
> And that doesn't make me happy.

Everybody in the world of chess is weaker than someone else. Except the champion and main
challengers. And even they are weaker than many other people for most of their lives.

I study and admire the play of stronger players - or at least I used to. It doesn't bother me that
I am weaker than they are - if I was equally obsessed with chess I'd be vastly stronger than I
am. How much is unknown, so I can imagine some ridiculous amount.

Then there's good old denial. There was a player who couldn't stand being weaker than I. So he simply declared that he was stronger. This gave him hours of entertainment as every time he lost to me, which was often, he would deeply analyze the game to prove that he should have won. Deep analysis, even of this kind, will always improve your game and he became much stronger. Alas, I was getting
stronger at the time so he never caught up. But he was up to 2000 in real otb chess, so about 2400 in internet ratings.

I left the country, he quit chess and put all that energy into his career, which went very well. He's still a weaker player than I, but can console himself that he is moderately wealthy.

William Hyde

[Eli Kesef]

Bs"d

The GPA did it again; a 1700 player crushed in 23 moves: https://lichess.org/iohRYrgJa1jN

https://tinyurl.com/crush-with-GPA