THE MODERN MORRA GAMBIT: A Dynamic Weapon Against the Sicilian
Author: Hannes Langrock
Russell Enterprises (2006)
334 pages
$24.95

Reviewed by Jeremy Silman

I've always considered the Smith-Mora Gambit to be a bit of a joke. White gives up a pawn for some development and tricks, but it seemed to me that Black's solid position, combined with a working knowledge of one of Black's many good anti-Mora setups, would always leave White trying to find a way to equalize. After reading Langrock's THE MODERN MORRA GAMBIT, I paused and thought that perhaps, just perhaps, this gambit could offer the amateur a good deal of fun and, if Black passed the theoretical test and survived the opening, then White could still bail out and find equality somewhere or other.

A fine fantasy, but I soon came to my senses! The fact is, the gambit is indeed quite tricky, and it promises the chess swashbuckler lots of fun and many sparkling victories (and, of course, some miserable defeats, but that's true of anything you play against the Sicilian). It's a perfectly reasonable choice for those playing opponents with ratings of 1900 and below. But if we decide to give the Smith-Morra Gambit an honest grade as to its true theoretical worth, we have to throw it on the garbage heap along with other "toss it out and cross your fingers" systems.

To Langrock's credit, he admits that Black can equalize cleanly in many lines. But he also shows White's possibilities if Black makes the smallest misstep, and they are far greater than I ever imagined. Every system is explored with a fine-toothed comb, and he shows that some highly touted "refutations" aren't nearly as strong as they were made out to be.

For me, I always placed my faith in two systems: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6, and 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Rd1 Bd7. I also took it for granted that the Finegold Defense (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6) was effective thanks to my blindfold reading of a book (SMITH-MORRA GAMBIT: FINEGOLD DEFENSE, Trends Publications 1997) on this antidote by Bob Ciaffone (who loves chess but specializes in poker) and Ben Finegold, one of the world's strongest and funniest IMs. As a result of my admitted prejudices, I spent the vast majority of my time with THE MODERN MORRA GAMBIT looking over how Langrock recommended dealing with these three tries. Let's see how each of these held up.

First, the Finegold Defense (keep in mind that I've never actually played it!): 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6. This appears to be an important position, with the authors of both books giving wildly different assessments. After 9.e5 dxe5 10.Nxe5 0-0 11.Rd1 Nbd7 12.Bf4 Qe8 13.Bd3 Langrock gives quite a bit more, ending with White having a big plus in some endgame. This seems to be pie in the sky to me. In fact, Black's in no danger at all (I hope) after 13...Nd5! 14.Nxd5 exd5 and now 15.Rac1 (given by Langrock) 15...Bf6 is = (no winning chances for White at all), while 15.Nxd7 Bxd7 16.Re1 Be6 17.Qh5 g6 18.Qh6 Bf6 19.Be5 (19.Bd6 Bxb2 favors Black) 19...Qe7 is also less than nothing for White. So the Finegold Defense appears to be alive and well.

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Rd1 Bd7 is a system I picked up somewhere or other, a millennium or so ago. I've used it to good effect over the years. Two examples:

Andersson-Silman, Ervin Memorial 1987: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Rd1 Bd7 10.a4 Rc8 11.Rb1 Qc7 12.Be3 Nf6 13.Nd2 0-0 14.f3 Nb4 15.Qf2 d5 16.ed Nfd5 17.Nd5 ed5 18.Bb3 Bf5 19.Rbc1 Qc1 20.Rc1 Rc1 21.Nf1 Rb6 22.Qd2 Bd3 23.Bd1 Rc8 24.Kf2 Bf1 25.Kf1 Rc2 26.Qd4 Bc5, 0-1.

J Frankle-Silman, Ervin Memorial 1987: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Rd1 Bd7 10.h3 Rc8 11.a3 Nf6 12.Be3 0-0 13.Rac1 Qc7 14.Ba2 Qb8 15.b4 b5 16.Ne1 Ne5 17.Rd4 Bc6 18.a4 Qb7 19.ab5 ab5 20.f3 Rfd8 21.Bf2 Ng6 22.Rd2 d5 23.e5 Nd7 24.Nd3 Bg5 25.Bd4 Nf4 26.Nf4 Bf4 27.Re1 Bd2 28.Qd2 Nb6 29.Qg5 Nc4 30.Bb1 Re8 31.Qh5 g6 32.Qh6 Qe7 33.Bc5 Qd8 34.Bd4 Re7 35.Ne2 Rd7 36.Nf4 Qf8 37.Qh4 Qb4 38.Nh5 gh5 39.Qg5 Kf8 40.Bh7 Ke8 41.Rb1 Qe7 42.Qh5 Kd8 43.Bd3 Kc7 44.f4 Ra8 45.Qg4 Rdd8 46.f6 Rg8 47.Qe2 Qh4 48.Bc5 d4 49.Bc4 bxc4, 0-1.

Always trying to be fair, Mr. Langrock calls this move order (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Rd1 Bd7) "clever," and assesses the chances as even after 10.Bf4 e5 11.Be3 Nf6 12.Rd2 0-0 (citing the game Regan-Holm, London 1994, which led to a quick draw). Suffice it to say that this "clever" move order takes all the fun out of White's gambit, giving him nothing better than a run at equality.

That leaves us with my favorite anti-Mora system: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6. Langrock sticks it in the back of the book and calls it the "Notorious 6...a6!?" An odd name. Perhaps it's notorious because White has suffered horribly over the years when facing it. Make no mistake about it, this is a major threat (THE major threat, in my view) to the Smith-Mora Gambit, not only avoiding all the tricks, but also leaving White scrambling for parity. I've won many games with 6...a6 during the span of my career, though I must admit that I also lost one (that dim, nauseating memory still pains me). Here Langrock admits that normal play via 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qe2 Bg4 9.Rd1 e6 is very nice for Black. Indeed, after 10.Bf4 Langrock points out that 10...Qb8 has given Black 12.5 points from 13 in the database (an amazing statistic!). I noted that Fritz 9 goes crazy over 10...Nh5, while I always played 10...Qa5 since 11.Bxd6 Bxd6 12.Rxd6 Bxf3 forces 13.gxf3 (13.Qxf3 Ne5 14.Qe2 Qc5 wins a piece) when 13...Qg5+ is quite miserable for the first player.

Since 7.0-0 doesn't get the job done, White has placed his fate in the hands of 7.Bg5. In Donaldson's review of THE MODERN MORRA GAMBIT, John says:

"Langrock then gives the sequence 7...Nf6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.0-0 e6 10.Nd4! praising the last move as offering White excellent chances. Remember this position. Now visualize the sequence 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.Bc4 a6 9.0-0. Look at the two positions. A quick glance will show they are almost identical and that Black is to move in both sequences. What is the difference? Yes, in the first example White is missing a pawn on c2! Now I realize that this might well be useful if Black castles queenside but what if he doesn't? I would not expect a Classical Sicilian player to fret at White's Richter-Rauzer/Sozin hybrid or to argue if he handed over his c-pawn after the opening. Langrock offers 10...Qc7, 10...Nxd4 and 10...Bd7 but what about the simple 10...Be7 planning ...0-0, ...Kh8 and ...Rg8. I'm not a Richter-Rauzer man but doesn't Black just stand well here? I see Nxc6, Qh5 and a Rook lift to h3 but at worst can't Black return the f7-pawn and end up in an ending with the two Bishops and a huge center?"

Impeccable logic by the well-known San Francisco based IM. Langrock, understandably trying to keep his beloved gambit alive, replied with an improvement: "His new plan in the 6...a6!? line looks interesting. He wants to castle short and play ...Kh8 and ...Rg8. This seems to be quite a good set-up for Black. An idea for White is to avoid this and meet 10...Be7 with 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qg4!? Now Black cannot castle and his king stays in the center. Also White can often grab a pawn with Qg7 ...Rf8 Qxh7. But of course Black has his pawn center."

Langrock's recommendation seems best. However, after 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.Bg5 Nf6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.0-0 e6 10.Nd4 Be7 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qg4 Qa5 13.Qg7 Rf8 14.Qxh7 Qg5 15.Rac1 Rg8 16.g3 Rg6 17.h4 (17.Qh8+ Bf8) Black can retain a safe edge (with White being reduced to groveling for a draw) via 17...Rg7 (a tough decision, since 17...Qh6 18.Qxh6 Rxh6 and 17...Rh6 18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.hxg5 fxg5 also lead to thankless positions for White) 18.Qh8+ Rg8 19.Qh7 Qg6 20.Qxg6 fxg6 (20...Rxg6!?) and Black's center and two Bishops can't be making White very happy. Clearly, these kinds of positions, though perhaps not the end of the world for the first player, are not what White had in mind when playing the Smith-Mora Gambit!

Of course, none of this is Langrock's fault. He wrote the ultimate book on the Morra -- which really isn't a very good opening -- and did a fantastic job. A less honest writer (and most Morra addicts are zealots who refuse to accept the reality of their beloved system) would make all sorts of outrageous claims in White's favor. Langrock is honest throughout, offers up lots of original analysis, and shows that Black has to know what he's doing or risk being dismembered.

The one quibble I have with this book is its design/layout. I quickly discovered that it was annoyingly hard to find the lines I was looking for. Oddly, the Table of Contents doesn't always help, nor does the Index of Variations. Such dense analysis and so many confusing move orders needed to be separated and made more accessible, at least for an old plodder such as myself.

Langrock's THE MODERN MORRA GAMBIT is, by far, the best book ever written on the Smith-Mora Gambit. If you play this berserker system, you must own this book. And, if you are a Sicilian player, Langrock's fair treatment also makes this a wise buy.

Click to buy (or get more information about) THE MODERN MORRA GAMBIT: A Dynamic Weapon Against the Sicilian!