Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense

White Gambit

Source Lichess

Tough Sell-13%
All Ratings
Minimum Advantage-12.9%

White loses more often than wins at this level

Rating TrendPeak: -7.0% at 2200-2499
Win%42.8%
Games3.1K
Breakpoint (Overall)1600-1799
No position data
Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago DefenseWhite Gambit
Rating
Time Control

Does Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense work for White at All Ratings?

Snapshot

At All Ratings, Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense gives White a -12.9% minimum advantage (90% confidence). This gambit underperforms at this level.

RatingMin AdvWhite WinDrawWhite LossGames
1600-1799-25.3%43.0%2.5%54.5%137
1800-1999-25.2%38.9%4.1%57.0%503
2000-2199-16.6%42.0%4.2%53.8%1.2K
2200-2499-7.0%46.3%5.5%48.1%1.0K
2500+-29.7%39.4%3.8%56.9%170
Full Opening StatsSee rating/time-control breakdowns for White on the opening stats page

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense sound?

The Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense breaks at 1600-1799 overall (all time controls)—the first rating bracket where White no longer statistically wins more than loses. Below this rating, the gambit is viable for White. Note: breakpoints vary by time control—use the filters above for specific data.

What is the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense win rate?

The Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense has a 42.8% (90% CI: 41.3%-44.3%) win rate for White overall, with a 4.4% draw rate and 52.8% loss rate. This is based on 3.1K games from Lichess.

What is the best rating to play the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense?

The Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense performs best at 2200-2499, where White has a minimum advantage of +-7.0%. This means we're 90% confident White wins at least -7.0 percentage points more than they lose at this rating.

Is the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense better in blitz or rapid?

Blitz (+-11.9% edge) outperforms Rapid (+-34.5% edge) by 22.6 percentage points. Faster time controls typically favor gambits because opponents have less time to find accurate defenses.

Does the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense breakpoint vary by time control?

Yes, significantly. Breakpoints by time control: Bullet: 1600-1799, Blitz: 1600-1799, Rapid: 2000-2199, Classical: Never. "Never" means the gambit remains viable through all rating brackets in that time control. Faster time controls typically extend viability.

How sharp is the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense?

The Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense is extremely sharp with only 4.4% draws—95.6% of games end decisively. This makes it an excellent choice when you need to play for a win rather than accept a draw.

Should I play the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense?

If you're below 1600-1799 overall, the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense is statistically favorable for White. Above that rating, opponents defend better and the gambit's edge disappears. Consider your typical opponents' level and the time control—faster games extend the gambit's viability.

How do I defend against the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense?

As Black, the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense becomes easier to defend at 1600-1799 and above. Key principles: accept the material but develop quickly, castle early, trade pieces to reduce attacking potential, and return material at the right moment to neutralize the initiative. In faster time controls, the gambit is harder to defend—consider declining or transposing if you're not prepared.

How reliable is the Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit, Chicago Defense data?

This analysis is based on 3.1K games from Lichess. All statistics include 90% confidence intervals. Generally, 300+ games provide statistically meaningful results. Rating-specific and time-control-specific breakdowns have their own sample sizes shown in the table above.