Originally Posted by Sammy39337
Many Sicilian players think that the SM-gambit is unsound, but I haven't seen an analysis yet with a refutation. Even GM's don't agree about its soundness. Nigel Davies thinks that the SM-gambit is nothing but a bunch of cheap tricks, while Dorian Rogozenko recommends in his book "Anti-Sicilians, a guide for black" to decline the SM-gambit with 3...Nf6 because he can't see a way to neutralize white's activity. Besides, even if a gambit is unsound you can still play it if your opponent is not prepared for it. Most Sicilian players don't know the theory and I have won many exciting games with it.
|
Agreed. It's supposedly unsound, but there's not one line that black can play to always hold on to the pawn and neutralize white's attacking chances. So black has to actually think hard to defend properly, and white gets decent play for his pawn. That's pretty much what you hope for in any gambit.
Personally, I was convinced that the gambit's playable when I saw a game in which Kasparov played against it as black and drew. White might not have been able to use his first move advantage to give him a win, but he didn't lose, either. As far as I'm concerned, if the best player in the world at the time can't win every time against an opening, it's sound.
--Fromper