I personally do not see the point of 3. Qxd4 in the Smith Morra Gambit. It is no longer a gambit (unlike the main move of 3. c3) and just loses a vital tempo in the opening.
Are there any proponents of 3. Qxd4 out there, and if so what are the advantages of playing that system?
To bring the opponent out of book early of course. Your game is hardly of any relevance because Bb5 is a very bad move. I do not believe it is so bad although black can equalize pretty easily.
To bring the opponent out of book early of course. Your game is hardly of any relevance because Bb5 is a very bad move. I do not believe it is so bad although black can equalize pretty easily.
Thanks for replying.
Yes, certainly white's Bb5 idea did not help their cause but the discombobulation of their queen and dark squared bishop seemed to be the main culprit as black's Dragon setup was just too easy to play not having to stare down that white bishop/queen battery. And I would also think the idea of taking one's opponent out of book during correspondence play would be a questionable strategy as obviously their opponent has ample time to figure out a sensible plan to combat the perhaps weaker opening play.
That's because this is just down right bad. It's not "bad" for white according to the engine, but it just doesn't make sense. If white plays 3.Qxd4, it's not the Smith-Morra gambit, since he hasn't gambited anything. It's just an unnamed variation, because there is no reason to play this as white. Black gains the positional advantage of two central pawns, like with every open sicilian, but here white doesn't get the thing that he uses to compensate with, which is a big lead in development, as black simply gains a tempo with 3.Nc6.
However, do not confuse this with the Chekhover, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4. This is quite a challenging variation for black, as white has 5.Bb5 after 4.Nc6. In these positions white could get a Maroczy bind with c4 or simply develop quickly with Nc3, Bg5, Qd2 if Nc6 comes, and 0-0-0, depending on how black responds to 4.Qxd4.
That's because this is just down right bad. It's not "bad" for white according to the engine, but it just doesn't make sense. If white plays 3.Qxd4, it's not the Smith-Morra gambit, since he hasn't gambited anything. It's just an unnamed variation, because there is no reason to play this as white. Black gains the positional advantage of two central pawns, like with every open sicilian, but here white doesn't get the thing that he uses to compensate with, which is a big lead in development, as black simply gains a tempo with 3.Nc6.
However, do not confuse this with the Chekhover, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4. This is quite a challenging variation for black, as white has 5.Bb5 after 4.Nc6. In these positions white could get a Maroczy bind with c4 or simply develop quickly with Nc3, Bg5, Qd2 if Nc6 comes, and 0-0-0, depending on how black responds to 4.Qxd4.
There is also 1, e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 5. Qd2 Grischuk beat MVL in the candidates in this line. Magnus has also used this line with great effect as white.
If white plays 3.Qxd4, it's not the Smith-Morra gambit, since he hasn't gambited anything. It's just an unnamed variation
Agreed that 3. Qxd4 is not a gambit but it seems that any variation starting with 1. e4 c5 2. d4 is technically referred to as the Smith Morra Gambit in the couple of opening explorers I checked.
Of course the whole 3.Qxd4 thing is a beginner's approach, but a Dragon setup is not the way to punish it (actually there's not some sort of punishment). White could play c2-c4 early on setting a Maroczy bind position, and enjoy a typical space advantage.
Opening theory is not a strength of mine and obviously your opening knowledge blows mine out of the water. And I certainly agree that 3. Qxd4 is by no means immediately punishable. And we also seem to agree that 3. Qxd4 should not cause black any major difficulties because as you say it is a beginner's approach.
So even if not best I cannot imagine there is anything wrong with using the Dragon approach against 3. Qxd4, as that is the Sicilian system I am most comfortable playing and with a bit of inaccurate play from white it worked out well for me. And yes, it certainly could have caused me more difficulty if after 3...Nc6 4. Qe3 d6 white had set up a Maroczy bind with 5. c4.
However, do not confuse this with the Chekhover, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4. This is quite a challenging variation for black, as white has 5.Bb5 after 4.Nc6. In these positions white could get a Maroczy bind with c4 or simply develop quickly with Nc3, Bg5, Qd2 if Nc6 comes, and 0-0-0, depending on how black responds to 4.Qxd4.
Few strong players meet 4...Nc6 in the Chekhover with 5.Bb5 currently. 5.Qe3 is the most common move by far.
Everybody I play always plays 5. Bb5 there. Apparently I need to start playing some stronger players.
However, do not confuse this with the Chekhover, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4. This is quite a challenging variation for black, as white has 5.Bb5 after 4.Nc6. In these positions white could get a Maroczy bind with c4 or simply develop quickly with Nc3, Bg5, Qd2 if Nc6 comes, and 0-0-0, depending on how black responds to 4.Qxd4.
Few strong players meet 4...Nc6 in the Chekhover with 5.Bb5 currently. 5.Qe3 is the most common move by far.
Interesting, I did not know that, but either way black can't play d5 in one move here, like against 3.Qxd4, so it's still a lot better than that. I think 4.a6 is the best way to meet the Chekhover anyways, so I don't know 4.Nc6 that well.
That's because this is just down right bad. It's not "bad" for white according to the engine, but it just doesn't make sense. If white plays 3.Qxd4, it's not the Smith-Morra gambit, since he hasn't gambited anything. It's just an unnamed variation, because there is no reason to play this as white. Black gains the positional advantage of two central pawns, like with every open sicilian, but here white doesn't get the thing that he uses to compensate with, which is a big lead in development, as black simply gains a tempo with 3.Nc6.
However, do not confuse this with the Chekhover, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4. This is quite a challenging variation for black, as white has 5.Bb5 after 4.Nc6. In these positions white could get a Maroczy bind with c4 or simply develop quickly with Nc3, Bg5, Qd2 if Nc6 comes, and 0-0-0, depending on how black responds to 4.Qxd4.
There is also 1, e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 5. Qd2 Grischuk beat MVL in the candidates in this line. Magnus has also used this line with great effect as white.
That is an interesting line too, and definitely very playable for white, but I don't think it's a line that black has to be particularly worried about.
Of course the whole 3.Qxd4 thing is a beginner's approach, but a Dragon setup is not the way to punish it (actually there's not some sort of punishment). White could play c2-c4 early on setting a Maroczy bind position, and enjoy a typical space advantage.
Opening theory is not a strength of mine and obviously your opening knowledge blows mine out of the water. And I certainly agree that 3. Qxd4 is by no means immediately punishable. And we also seem to agree that 3. Qxd4 should not cause black any major difficulties because as you say it is a beginner's approach.
So even if not best I cannot imagine there is anything wrong with using the Dragon approach against 3. Qxd4, as that is the Sicilian system I am most comfortable playing and with a bit of inaccurate play from white it worked out well for me. And yes, it certainly could have caused me more difficulty if after 3...Nc6 4. Qe3 d6 white had set up a Maroczy bind with 5. c4.
This move order (with Black not having played an early ...d6) allows Black the luxury of breaking the center early on without loss of time. Say with 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 d5(!).
If white sets a bind with 5.c4?! then it's easily breakable with 5...e6 plus ...d5/Bb4/Qb6, according to white white plays.
Thanks. Yeah, I admit I hesitated playing 4...Nf6 due to 5. e5? but afterwards I saw that 5...Ng4 or 5...Qa5+ is strong for black. Just laziness on my part.
Here after 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Qxd4 black managed to get a highly advantageous position by using a standard Dragon Sicilian setup. Due to the fact that white's queen moved on move #3, never mind the lost tempo after the queen was attacked and had to move a second time after 3...Nc6, it became difficult for white to setup the standard anti-Dragon dark squared bishop/queen battery with the bishop on e3 and the queen on d2.
In this particular game white's queen and dark squared bishop never quite properly coordinated and along with other positional errors, such as trading (or being compelled to trade) light squared bishops (in my experience in the Dragon white's light squared bishop tends to be more useful than black's) and not defending the queenside as well as possible white's game never really got going and black was faced with zero difficulties. And after just 17 moves white called it a day.