Talk:Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...c5

Smith-Morra Gambit Lines
I'm starting to flesh out this gambit's lines -- it will probably grow into a page of its own. ThreeE 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Transcribed from a message board (full copyleft)
Some comments about Sicilians in general. Please forgive me if I pitch this too simplistically.

The main theme in the many Sicilian defences is that they tempt White to try for a win. In most variations, if White just wants a draw, there are some solid lines where a draw is almost inevitable.

However, White is, naturally, unwilling to give up the advantage of his birthright without some aggressive intent and is often prepared to enter into complications to try for a win.

The trick as Black is to give White enough hope without exposing one's own chin too much and getting knocked out.

It has previously been mentioned on this board that White often wins early, whilst Black's wins come later, through the force of the centre pawns.

In over-the-board (OTB) chess this is often the case. However, at correspondence (cc) level there is another issue which seldom appears in OTB games.

In games where White castles long and Black short White has a Q-side pawn majority which can be nurtured all the way into the end-game and prove decisive. This point was introduced to me by Kwid a couple of years back. Naturally, I tested it out and managed to demonstrate the idea in games against my computer, where the idea is hugely beyond the horizon of any current software (but not of Kwid).

It is considerations such as the above which affect my choice of openings. We have to avoid being killed early and in the end-game.

I have another theory about White's f1 Bishop. If the destiny of this Bishop is to exchange for a Knight on c4, then I try not to move it, if possible. To get to c4, then the Knight must have moved three times. Thinking along the same principle, I don't tend to fear Bb5 and BxKtc6, since now the Bishop has moved twice and the Knight once. The only caveat is keeping a careful eye on Black's pawn structure for the ending - see above.

Sentriclecub (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Some of the content betrays a lack of understanding. For example, 2.f4 against the Sicilian is not a violent attacking move. It is just a mistake, although a subtle one. A training game Botvinnik–Petrosian (1952) started 1.e4 c5 2.f4 Nf6! and White saw that both 3.e5 Nd5 and 3.Nc3 d5 were at least equalising. The game continued 3.d3 d5 4.e5 Ng8 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.c3 Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 e6. Petrosian went on to win that game. [#312 in The games of Tigran Petrosian, volume 1, Pergamon.]

This is why masters use the sequence 2.Nc3 before 3.f4 if they wish to play this line. Even so, it simply is not a 'violent attacking move'; its aims are more to do with what kind of position a particular player wishes to reach. 81.105.207.252 (discuss) 12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)