(...with apologies to one Robert J. Fischer.)
Elijah Logozar is a an 18-year-old US Chess expert from Round Rock, Texas.
And he claims to have busted the Smith-Morra Gambit.
Logozar offers his refutation in a course for Chessable.com titled “Mop up the Morra,” one of seven such courses he has published on that platform.
Here, in a polemic written specifically for US Chess, he sketches the outlines of his proposed bust. If you do some research, you'll find that Logozar has employed some controversial self-promotional techniques. Nevertheless, we do think that his bold claims and analysis deserve testing.
So US Chess is running a contest: can you bust the bust?
Send your counter-efforts to US Chess Digital Editor John Hartmann <john.hartmann@uschess.org> on or before August 15th. We will publish the best responses to Logozar’s claims, and give Logozar a chance to respond as well. Two prizes - one from US Chess Sales, and one from Chessable - will be awarded those submitting the best analysis.
Whirl up those engines and make a pot of coffee. It’s time to get to work, people. -- John Hartmann
A Bust to the Smith-Morra Gambit by Elijah Logozar I used to think that the Smith-Morra gambit was a dangerous attacking weapon. Armed with IM Marc Esserman’s book, I was initially persuaded that this gambit was sound or close to it. I managed to utilize the Morra with success both over the board and online. However, I discovered an early novelty which puts the soundness of the Smith-Morra gambit to the test. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 Nge7!? 7.Bg5 h6!N Esserman claims that White’s main ideas to utilize his dynamic advantage of a lead in development is to target the Black queen and the e5-break. If Black moves the queen from d8, it can become a target, and the main safe route ...Qc7-b8 is time consuming and passive. On d8, the Black queen is able to be targeted because of the x-ray from White’s d1-rook combined with the e5-break to open the d-file. But what if e5 didn’t come with tempo? Black is not required to play ...Nf6. He can play ...Ne7-g6 instead. If Black chooses this approach, the Black queen can’t be targeted by the e5-break because e5 doesn’t come with tempo. (If Black didn’t play ...d6 yet he can ignore the e5-pawn, and if ...f6 was played then Black can play ...d5). If Black consolidates with ...Ne7-g6 without White obtaining compensation, then White will have no targets because Black has no exploitable weaknesses and White has no way to create them without serious concessions. If White has no targets or sound way of creating targets, then he can’t utilize his dynamic advantage. If White can’t utilize his dynamic advantage, Black will have time to catch up on development and consolidate his extra pawn. Esserman calls the ...Nge7 lines “the professional’s approach” as a result of this dangerous consolidation plan and threatens various concrete methods of trying to prevent Black from consolidating his setup. Theory suggests the 6. …a6 7.0-0 Nge7 move order, but I don’t like this move order because after 8.Bg5 Black is forced to make a concession. After 8. ...f6 9.Be3, Black will have weakened the long diagonal. White can exploit this to obtain compensation with Nd4 followed by f4-f5 (among other ideas). After 8. ...h6 9.Be3 Black has to deal with the threat of Na4-b6 due to Black playing ...a6. For instance 9...Ng6 10.Bb3 b5 (to prevent Na4) and due to Black’s lack of kingside development White has Nd5! with a powerful initiative. I was convinced by Esserman that this sacrifice was sound and dangerous. However, this sacrifice would be unsound if Black had time to develop his kingside with ...Be7 and ...0-0 before White plays Nd5. Black would have had time to do this if he didn’t have to waste time on the queenside with ...a6 and ...b5. Why does theory recommend 6. ...a6? Because Nb5 is a dangerous idea in many lines, especially after ...Nge7 and Bg5, where the d6-knight is pinned. But does Black really have to fear Nb5 after Bg5? After 6. ...Nge7 7.Bg5 (forced according to Esserman) 7...h6 8.Nb5! supposedly gives White the advantage (according to Stockfish at a low depth) and Esserman, but the complications after 8. ...d5 actually favor Black. Esserman himself admits that White must go into this line or will be worse, evaluating 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 a6 as at least =+ for Black and 8.Be3 Ng6 as -/+. Here is a summary of why Black has the advantage after 7...h6 8.Nb5.
A Bust to the Smith-Morra Gambit by Elijah Logozar I used to think that the Smith-Morra gambit was a dangerous attacking weapon. Armed with IM Marc Esserman’s book, I was initially persuaded that this gambit was sound or close to it. I managed to utilize the Morra with success both over the board and online. However, I discovered an early novelty which puts the soundness of the Smith-Morra gambit to the test. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 Nge7!? 7.Bg5 h6!N Esserman claims that White’s main ideas to utilize his dynamic advantage of a lead in development is to target the Black queen and the e5-break. If Black moves the queen from d8, it can become a target, and the main safe route ...Qc7-b8 is time consuming and passive. On d8, the Black queen is able to be targeted because of the x-ray from White’s d1-rook combined with the e5-break to open the d-file. But what if e5 didn’t come with tempo? Black is not required to play ...Nf6. He can play ...Ne7-g6 instead. If Black chooses this approach, the Black queen can’t be targeted by the e5-break because e5 doesn’t come with tempo. (If Black didn’t play ...d6 yet he can ignore the e5-pawn, and if ...f6 was played then Black can play ...d5). If Black consolidates with ...Ne7-g6 without White obtaining compensation, then White will have no targets because Black has no exploitable weaknesses and White has no way to create them without serious concessions. If White has no targets or sound way of creating targets, then he can’t utilize his dynamic advantage. If White can’t utilize his dynamic advantage, Black will have time to catch up on development and consolidate his extra pawn. Esserman calls the ...Nge7 lines “the professional’s approach” as a result of this dangerous consolidation plan and threatens various concrete methods of trying to prevent Black from consolidating his setup. Theory suggests the 6. …a6 7.0-0 Nge7 move order, but I don’t like this move order because after 8.Bg5 Black is forced to make a concession. After 8. ...f6 9.Be3, Black will have weakened the long diagonal. White can exploit this to obtain compensation with Nd4 followed by f4-f5 (among other ideas). After 8. ...h6 9.Be3 Black has to deal with the threat of Na4-b6 due to Black playing ...a6. For instance 9...Ng6 10.Bb3 b5 (to prevent Na4) and due to Black’s lack of kingside development White has Nd5! with a powerful initiative. I was convinced by Esserman that this sacrifice was sound and dangerous. However, this sacrifice would be unsound if Black had time to develop his kingside with ...Be7 and ...0-0 before White plays Nd5. Black would have had time to do this if he didn’t have to waste time on the queenside with ...a6 and ...b5. Why does theory recommend 6. ...a6? Because Nb5 is a dangerous idea in many lines, especially after ...Nge7 and Bg5, where the d6-knight is pinned. But does Black really have to fear Nb5 after Bg5? After 6. ...Nge7 7.Bg5 (forced according to Esserman) 7...h6 8.Nb5! supposedly gives White the advantage (according to Stockfish at a low depth) and Esserman, but the complications after 8. ...d5 actually favor Black. Esserman himself admits that White must go into this line or will be worse, evaluating 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 a6 as at least =+ for Black and 8.Be3 Ng6 as -/+. Here is a summary of why Black has the advantage after 7...h6 8.Nb5.
[pgn] [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2019.07.30"] [Round "?"] [White "Smith-Morra"] [Black "Logozar's refutation"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B21"] [Annotator "Logozar, Elijah"] [PlyCount "26"] [EventDate "2019.07.16"] {The analysis in my Chessable course "Mop up the Morra!" goes a lot deeper than the summary, but this should be enough to show the main idea behind the refutation.} 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 $6 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 ({ Black is also better after Stockfish's alternative} 6. Bf4 {which is also analyzed in my course. Critical is} a6 7. e5 f5) 6... Nge7 7. Bg5 ({Despite dismissal by Esserman and theory,} 7. O-O {is a critical line.} Ng6 (7... a6 $6 8. Bg5 {sidesteps the critical 7.Bg5 h6! line, transposing back into theory.}) 8. Nb5 {Black must either go for the complications after 8...d6 or allow White to win the bishop pair with Nd6+. I prefer the complications because Black giving up the bishop pair would allow White to fight for compensation.} d6 9. Bg5 Qd7 $15 {I deeply analyze these complications in my Chessable course (up to move 22 in one of the lines) and have concluded that Black is better if he plays correctly.}) 7... h6 $1 $146 {I discovered the value of this novelty when studying Esserman's book because he stopped after 8.Nb5 d5 and I didn't like how he stopped in a complex position without giving analysis so I decided to analyze with the engine.} (7... f6 8. Be3 {is the mainline. The weakening of the a2-g8 diagonal allows White to obtain compensation for the sacrificed pawn. This weakness can be exploited by either the standard Nd4 with f4-f5 or in some cases the Nd5 sacrifice.}) 8. Nb5 {Esserman's suggestion and the only possible punishment of 7...h6. Theory likely hasn't noticed 7...h6 yet because Stockfish initially thinks that the complications after 8.Nb5 favor White. After guidance, it changes it's mind and decides that Black has the advantage. This was tested in 45 endgame games (Stockfish vs. itself) and Black won or drew every game.} (8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 a6 {White doesn’t have sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn due to his lack of pawn levers or targets. Black can easily develop (…Bg7, ...Ng6, …b5 with …Bb7, …Rc8, …Nce5) and in many lines Black will fight for the initiative with a kingside pawn storm. Esserman admits that Black is better here.}) (8. Be3 Ng6 $17 {White is unable to interfere with Black's setup and due to the delayal of ...a6, Black doesn't have to worry about Na4-b6. This buys him time to quickly castle kingside and can later play ...a6 and ...b5 without worrying about the Nd5 sacrifice. Esserman admits that Black is better here.}) 8... d5 9. exd5 { The following complications favor Black.} hxg5 10. dxc6 (10. dxe6 $5 {leads to interesting complications that favor Black.} Bxe6 11. Nd6+ Qxd6 12. Qxd6 Rd8 13. Qc5 Nf5 14. Bxe6 (14. Qb5 Bb4+ 15. Kf1 Nd6 16. Qxg5 Bxc4+ 17. Kg1 O-O $19 { Black has a decisive initiative.}) 14... Bxc5 15. Bxf5 $15 {Black has a better endgame due to his superior piece activity.}) 10... Nxc6 11. Qxd8+ Kxd8 12. O-O-O+ (12. Rd1+ $5 {is an alternative which I cover in high detail in my Chessable course.} Bd7 {is preferable over ...Ke7 because there isn't concrete tactics down the c-file if the White king isn't on c1. The concrete differences are deeply covered in the Chessable course "Mop up the Morra!". The drawback of 12.Rd1+ over 12.0-0-0+ is thatI White isn't as well developed (Rhe1 won't be played until White castles). My main line runs:} 13. O-O Be7 14. Nd6 Bxd6 15. Rxd6 Ke7 16. Rfd1 Be8 17. Nxg5 Rh4 18. b3 e5 $15 {where Black has the advantage due to his superior king activity and d4-outpost. There might be an improvement for Black on the way (Stockfish seems to think there are several ways for Black to get an advantage after 12...Bd7), but this is what I concluded was best.}) (12. Nxg5 $6 Bb4+ $17 {followed by ...Ke7 allows Black to keep his static advantages and obtain the initiative.}) 12... Ke7 13. Nxg5 g6 $15 {Black intends ...Bg7 with ...a6 and ...b5 with ...Nd4. Black has a static advantage due to his king activity, bishop pair, and d4-outpost. I challenge readers to try to prove that White can equalize from this position or to find earlier improvements for White after 4.Nxc3.} 0-1 [/pgn]
Categories
Archives
- October 2024 (10)
- September 2024 (23)
- August 2024 (27)
- July 2024 (44)
- June 2024 (27)
- May 2024 (32)
- April 2024 (51)
- March 2024 (34)
- February 2024 (25)
- January 2024 (26)
- December 2023 (29)
- November 2023 (26)
- October 2023 (37)
- September 2023 (27)
- August 2023 (37)
- July 2023 (47)
- June 2023 (33)
- May 2023 (37)
- April 2023 (45)
- March 2023 (37)
- February 2023 (28)
- January 2023 (31)
- December 2022 (23)
- November 2022 (32)
- October 2022 (31)
- September 2022 (19)
- August 2022 (39)
- July 2022 (32)
- June 2022 (35)
- May 2022 (21)
- April 2022 (31)
- March 2022 (33)
- February 2022 (21)
- January 2022 (27)
- December 2021 (36)
- November 2021 (34)
- October 2021 (25)
- September 2021 (25)
- August 2021 (41)
- July 2021 (36)
- June 2021 (29)
- May 2021 (29)
- April 2021 (31)
- March 2021 (33)
- February 2021 (28)
- January 2021 (29)
- December 2020 (38)
- November 2020 (40)
- October 2020 (41)
- September 2020 (35)
- August 2020 (38)
- July 2020 (36)
- June 2020 (46)
- May 2020 (42)
- April 2020 (37)
- March 2020 (60)
- February 2020 (38)
- January 2020 (45)
- December 2019 (35)
- November 2019 (35)
- October 2019 (42)
- September 2019 (45)
- August 2019 (56)
- July 2019 (44)
- June 2019 (35)
- May 2019 (40)
- April 2019 (48)
- March 2019 (61)
- February 2019 (39)
- January 2019 (30)
- December 2018 (29)
- November 2018 (51)
- October 2018 (45)
- September 2018 (29)
- August 2018 (49)
- July 2018 (35)
- June 2018 (31)
- May 2018 (39)
- April 2018 (31)
- March 2018 (26)
- February 2018 (33)
- January 2018 (30)
- December 2017 (26)
- November 2017 (24)
- October 2017 (30)
- September 2017 (30)
- August 2017 (32)
- July 2017 (27)
- June 2017 (32)
- May 2017 (26)
- April 2017 (37)
- March 2017 (28)
- February 2017 (30)
- January 2017 (27)
- December 2016 (29)
- November 2016 (24)
- October 2016 (32)
- September 2016 (31)
- August 2016 (27)
- July 2016 (24)
- June 2016 (26)
- May 2016 (19)
- April 2016 (30)
- March 2016 (37)
- February 2016 (27)
- January 2016 (33)
- December 2015 (25)
- November 2015 (23)
- October 2015 (16)
- September 2015 (28)
- August 2015 (28)
- July 2015 (6)
- June 2015 (1)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (1)
- February 2015 (3)
- January 2015 (1)
- December 2014 (1)
- July 2010 (1)
- October 1991 (1)
- August 1989 (1)
- January 1988 (1)
- December 1983 (1)