I agree. Please remove the picture. I am sorry that I posted it in the first place! 

Now back to the critical line in the EG. I have now had time to look a bit more into DragonSlayer's suggestions. I think you are right: Throwing in the two rooks (Re8, Re1) looks better for black. Still, black is worse after 16. - b5 17. cb5 Qd5 18.a4 a6 19. Ra6 Bf4. Fritz thinks it +/- (0.94 - i.e., almost a pawn). Perhaps 17. - Qxd5 is not the best move for black. What about Nf6, Nb6, or Rb8 ? According to Fritz, white has a smaller advantage in these three lines...

I just finished some work on the Elephant gambit and I am not so sure I agree that "White has just won a pawn".
First of all Halasz won the game.
Secondly, I think Black should include the pair Re1 and Re8, i.e.: 9...Re8 10.Re1 and only now 10...h6. The reason for this is obvious: White's problem piece is the Bishop which is still on c1. Exchanging a pair of rooks on e4 weakens White's back rank.
11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Rxe4 Rxe4 13.Nxe4 Bxh2+ 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Qxe4 16.c4. If Black were unable to regain the pawn immediately I would say that he only has a little compensation. But the real question is why stop the analysis here?
In the Elephant gambit, whenever White protects pawn-d5 with c2-c4 Black should be looking to break with b7-b5. Without the rook exchange 15...b7-b5 would be impossible due to 16.Re1 but here it works: 16...b5 In fact I see no reason to consider any other moves Black and I would certainly not dismiss the entire 3...Bd6 line on account of this position.
Try some moves for White:
17.cxb5 Qxd5 (17...Nf6 intending Nxd5 and Re8 controlling the e-file might be even better.) 18.a4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 leaves White with lots of weakness;
17.b3 bxc4 18.bxc4 Nb6 is even worse as Qb3 is met by Qe1+ (see!)
In each case it is evident that Bc1 has no good squares.

In the most recent games (Plaskett-Rogers 2004) I have I saw that Jonathan Rogers played 3...e4 so perhaps he agrees that 3...Bd6 is bad.

Quote:


I could find only two games with 8 d4, both interesting but neither very convincing:

[Event "corr"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1980.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Goerlinger, Stephane (FRA)"]
[Black "Halasz, Gyorgy (HUN)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
[PlyCount "70"]
[EventDate "1980.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Bd6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bb5+ Bd7 6. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 7. O-O O-O
8. d4 e4 9. Ng5 h6 10. Ngxe4 Nxe4 11. Nxe4 Bxh2+ 12. Kxh2 Qh4+ 13. Kg1 Qxe4 14.
c4 Rfe8 15. b3 Nf6 16. Ba3 Qh4 17. g3 Qh3 18. Qf3 Re4 19. Rfe1 Rae8 20. Rxe4
Rxe4 21. d6 cxd6 22. d5 Qd7 23. Bb2 Qe7 24. Qf5 Nd7 25. Rd1 g6 26. Qh3 h5 27.
Bd4 b6 28. Rd2 f5 29. Be3 Ne5 30. Kg2 Ng4 31. Bd4 Re1 32. Qh4 Qe4+ 33. f3 Ne3+
34. Kf2 Rf1+ 35. Ke2 Qxf3+ 0-1

[Event "NATT4-06"]
[Site "corr"]
[Date "1995.12.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Neves, JoseJoaquim A Costa"]
[Black "Berthelsen, Roald (NOR)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C40"]
[PlyCount "101"]
[EventDate "1995.12.20"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Bd6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bb5+ Bd7 6. O-O O-O 7. Bxd7 Nbxd7
8. d4 exd4 9. Qxd4 Re8 10. Bg5 Ne5 11. Nd2 h6 12. Bxf6 Qxf6 13. Nce4 Nf3+ 14.
Nxf3 Qxd4 15. Nxd4 Rxe4 16. Rfd1 Bc5 17. Nb3 Bb6 18. Re1 Rf4 19. Re2 Rd8 20. g3
Rc4 21. Rd1 a5 22. Rd3 a4 23. Nc1 f5 24. Kg2 Kf7 25. Kf3 Re8 26. Rxe8 Kxe8 27.
c3 Kd7 28. b3 axb3 29. axb3 Re4 30. Rd2 g5 31. h3 h5 32. Nd3 Kd6 33. c4 Rd4 34.
Ke2 h4 35. Rc2 Re4+ 36. Kf3 Ba7 37. Ra2 Bb6 38. Rc2 Ba7 39. gxh4 Rxh4 40. Kg3
Rd4 41. Nb2 Kc5 42. Rc3 Rd2 43. Na4+ Kb4 44. Rf3 Bd4 45. Rxf5 Kxb3 46. d6 cxd6
47. Nb6 Bxb6 48. Rb5+ Kxc4 49. Rxb6 d5 50. Rxb7 Re2 51. Kg4 1/2-1/2

Quote:


Well Marchisotti's article wasn't really about elephant but about Cozio Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5) which is not a gambit.  Marchisotti has tried and studied this defence showing that it isn't so bad but even playable.  He played a lot of games as Black (including one also against  me) with good results.

Quote:


I don't recall a Basman pamphlet but I seem to remember that Jonathon Rogers put one out. Anyway, here is a link to a theoretical article in Italian:

http://www.asigc.it/teoria/cozio/cozio.htm

Nexirae, 8.Bxe6 Qxe6 9.Be3 seems pretty pleasant for white.

Yes, I've read the kibitzer article many a time, and it's part of the reason why I now play this opening now and again (along with a crazy man who plays the elephant with ...Kf8, among other obscenely strange lines in the english and KG). I even defend it's honour in IECC thematic matches - I can't post my current game as black in it but I believe I have a comfortable edge and have won my pawn back. (Unfortunately I won in 15 moves in the game as white, but I'll try to ignore that fact)

Regards,
Craig 

Hi, i have never played the elephant gamit (A.K.A queen pawn counter-gambit) or played against it.  However if you have interest in that line there is a very interesting article by Tim Harding at www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz15.txt

Happy elephant hunting.