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.

Man, most of you like Alapin Variation. If the line is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4, my fourth move would be Qxd4. I am going for my the Moscow variation. 4....Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. c4.

That is my line. I just build a strong center when I use that variation.

I play that too, though I favour the 7. Nc3 continuations usually, I'm not a Maróczy type mostly. By the way, the Moscow is the line with the check
which is sort of related and can, but usually doesn't, transpose.
The nomunclature is somewhat unclear in this area I must admit.


My opinion on the subject:
Moscow variation: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Rossolimo variation: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5
Chekhover variation: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4*

*I've heard it called "Hungarian variation as well, but I don't know the source for that*

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

Yeah, my results against the sicilian went up dramatically when I switched to the Smith-Morra.

Is it unsound? I dunno. You could probably argue that it achieves a certain dynamic equality - white has some compensation for the pawn, but maybe not enough - but I think most players <2000, and certainly almost all players below 1700, and far better off with the more active position compared to an extra pawn.

Yeah I don't know what I should do against the Sicilian neither. I don't want to do a 2. Nf3 line that will get into one of those lines that everyone knows 30 moves in.

I'm thinking about 2. Ne2 for my response to the Sicilian. Is that a good idea for a beginner?

2. Ne2 is not a good idea because you blocking your light-squared bishop. Just stick with 2. Nf3 so that you would develop your king side. 2.Nc3 would do if you want to move an Anti-Sicilian move. Or you could go for KIA.

Your unwillingness to step into a killing zone with 2. Nf3 is probably quite healthy right now.

A long time ago, I had a chat with a friend of mine (who is now nearing master strength) about what beginners should be playing against the Sicilian with 2. ... d6. Mind you, I was quite beyond being a beginner at that point.

He told me that 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 was out of the question and that there were four good choices:
- The Chekhover (also called Hungarian sometimes) with 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 with the point that you can keep the queen around in the center, for a while at least. Unfortunately, the queen recapture doesn't work (well) for the other Sicilian systems that branch off at move 2.
I play this line against d6-Sicilian types.
- The Rossolimo with 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 and the related Moscow with 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ depends on rapid development and isn't too much of a hassle to play.
I play the Rossolimo against Nc6-Sicilian types with hopes of transposing into aforementioned Chekhover.
- The Closed Sicilian with 2. Nc3, which sets up a KIA structure in some cases (one can transpose into the Soltis' Chameleon system via 2. Ne2 actually). Works fine for the KIA crowd, but I wouldn't necessarily go there.
- Alapin Sicilian with 2. c3 (or its delayed counterpart with 2. Nf3 ... 3. c3) which sets up a classical center. The basic ideas are incredibly simple though it too can get complex if you let it. I used to play this for a long time until I thought myself ready for more involving Sicilian lines (see above). Oddly, black will very likely not play what's best for him.
If I were a complete beginner again, I'd stick to the Alapin like Sticky the sticky bug who got stuck on a sticky bun.

The Grand Prix attack had a bit of a heyday, too. (1.e4 c5 2.f4) although it grew less popular after the Tal countergambit (2. ... d5) was discovered. Now people play 2.Nc3, although it's still considered a distinct line from the traditional closed sicilian.

The closed is really pretty easy to play for white, though, and definitely worth looking into.

Well, I cut my teeth on the Dragon and Najdorf, so to me, playing anything but 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 is like putting on a pink leotard. I'd never do it, and if my opponent does, it gives me confidence, because it means he isn't willing to contest the critical lines against me.

My results against the Smith Morra are actually only so-so, (50%ish), mostly because I used to try too hard to refute it (why are you playing h7-h5, g7-g5 a pawn up?). My results against the Alapin/Closed/f4 lines are very, very good. The Wing Gambit is the weak spot statistically, although that's mostly because a local master used to play it and his general chess strength would start to show even a pawn down.

So I'd say try the main lines! Eventually, you need to learn the structures involved, so there isn't any time like the present. I would stick with positional lines to start with, though, rather than Queenside-castling.