"Yet, there is a line after 10.Bg5! which is still unclear for me. It is 10..Ng6!"
Is-it ? Then I'd rather play it instead of 10...Qd6...
Just kidding! I did not like 11.Nh5 and after 11.Qe2 I do play 11...a6.

Patrik, you do not have to complain on your hours of analysis consecutive to such a "must not work-against the rules of chess" move like 1.d4 d5 2.e4.
It is your thing, you deliberately have choosen it.
As for me, in 15 years of active professional chess, I met it only twice including one in a rapid tournament.
My involvement into the Lemberger is only 'ideal' and for the good of this section.

It is useless to launch a second thread on 4...Bb4. We can continue here.
By the way, this is what we had with teyko. 2 different discussions on the same Shneider's thread. 
When the BDG represents less than 5% of the theorical up to date material of this section, it occupies more than 50% of the space on this forum!! 

Markovich, I just want a relevant game against a specialist on 4...Bb4 because I have realized it was the only move, here, in the spirit of the Lemberger.
If, in that purpose, I have to resign this game then I will without problem.
Do not worry, I shall resign soon anyway, when Patrik's "winning attack" breaks through  
 

Eric wrote: "I am not here to waste time on correspondence chess I just want to find a game that would support I disagreeessment that Black can comfortably equalize by giving back the pawn in the Lemberger and fulfill my duty for chesspublishing."

  Yes, it might be true. But I waste my time in this way too. Before I played 8.f3 I have spent several hours (I guess some 7 or more) trying to find an advantage against several possibilities after 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5! Not just one hour of analysis or Fritz in depth 15. I have been successfull in doing so. Yet, there is a line after 10.Bg5! which is still unclear for me. It is 10..Ng6! 
   
  I do not like (as I wrote here several times) an approach of black players who mention one line and immediately when you work out the analysis proving white´s advantage they start to yell about some other line and so on and so forth. It is an endless cycle. 
   
  You have to realize that analysis for white are very difficult and time demanding. I have never played against 4..Bb4!? So I have no analysis in hand and to find an advantage would take some time. 
  I see you want to find a way to equalise, but you can (in the way you´re doing it) find it even without helping "by myself". I do not want to be a clown or an opponent on whom you can try all your "one second" ideas (after Bb4!? it might have been exd4 and Bg4 etc.) I want to play against strong players who deserve my attention and my time. Not against someone who ran Fritz for 15 minutes finding 7..Bg4 and then played it. And after one hour more of analysis simply rejected the whole line resigning the game. 
   
  Till now, I haven´t found any advantage in 10.Bg5 Ng6! line. But to go right this way one needs to give to the position more than one hour of analysis with a chessboard. This sounds ridiculous for me.   
   
Eric wrote: "but your refusal to play against 4...Bb4 is already the sign that I touched the sensitive point of 4.Nge2!" 

  No, you don´t touch any sensitive point. But your attitude to our first game might be also transposed to the second one. And I don´t want to face the same situation that after many hours of analysis I will play some two or three moves and you simply will say "you have won" followed by "I need to prove = for my article, it is my job, I want to try 4..exd4". I have not enough time for such "childish plays" or so-called "games". That is my most important point. 
 
  I´m sorry if I offend you somehow but that´s the way I feel it.
  Or do you think you can find the truth (you´re talking about) after one hour of analysis? I don´t.

The solution is simple and clear: BDG - anti BDG 1-0 and GM Prié is willing to take up another game!
Patrik, you should be proud.

I see your point Patrik but you also have to consider mine.

I am not here to waste time on correspondence chess I just want to find a game that would support my assessment that Black can comfortably equalize by giving back the pawn in the Lemberger and fulfill my duty for chesspublishing.
This was the case with teyko in the Shneiders.
It is another concept of online analysis where you can take moves back at any moment.
These aborted attempts will feed the published game eventually.
I am sorry, but I am not interested in anything else then finding out the so-called truth on this forum. 

When launching this thread I decided to play 7...Bg4 after 15' of Fritz aided thought,  yesterday I analysed for more than 1 hour.
For the first time in 4 years you even forced me to take a proper chess board ! and that is already a great victory for the BDG  
Defending against the attack with a good pawn in the pocket does not conform at all with the spirit of the Lemberger.
Indeed why not accepting the pawn and enter complications by "playing the most aggressive and principled continuations" like the promising 5...Bf5 as said X and many others before him ?
 
I would rather defend a practical approach with a didactic procedure turned towards the tournament player.

If you want to prove White has a winning attack after 10...Qd6 11.Qe2 a6 (or 12.Qd3 a6  or  12.Bb5+ Bd7) I wish you good luck and will happily follow ( and correct if necessary ) your analysis posted here but your refusal to play against 4...Bb4 is already the sign that I touched the sensitive point of 4.Nge2!

I have to disagree with Eric Prié. The position shows an excellent situation when to accept a pawn (though not clear).
White cant really castle, a pawn more and I dont see anything to go for as white. I see his point though, he wants a variation where you dont accept the pawn (any) and get good play as black. 
Botwinnik already knew that 2..e6 or 2..c6 are the refutations of the BDG nonsense

All right Patrik, after  8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 Qd6
Black has to accept the pawn and fight against the opposing initiative.
This not in the spirit of the Lemberger, you have won  

If you want we can continue this game in parallel but I had rather play 4...Bb4 in a second game, more relevant for what I am trying to prove for the section, if you do not mind.

Here is a link to the analysis on this line:

http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/horizon.htm

(Patrik supplied a link to me in a separate thread.)