At last some lines, although the layout makes this a little confusing.

If I'm following your variation after 14.Rxf6!? gxf6 15.Qxf8 Rf8 16.Ne4 Qe7 17.Qe5 f6, 18.Nd6+ just loses since 18...Kd7 19.Rd1?? fxe5 is a slight blow for white - no computer needed for the assessment there. Therefore 18.Qh5+ instead, but simply 18...Kd8 19.Qxh6 (what else) Kc7 and white's attack is clearly insufficient with the reduced material. Therefore white cannot find any solace in this line.

Let's go back to variation a) then, 17.Qxh6. Then black can play the typical Euwe themed move, 17...f5! 18.Ng5 Bd7, preparing O-O-O. The only move which cuts across this plan is 19.Qg6+, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that after 19...Kd8 20.Re1! e5! 21.Bc4 Kc7, white again has insufficient material to really trouble black and again black should win. 

So these lines are all junk sadly. White, however, DOES have another move after 14.Rxf6!? gxf6, which is the immediate 15.Ne4, which poses some awkward problems. 

15...Qe7 appears to be forced for black, after white there is a parting of the ways: A) 16.Re1 and B) 16.Nxf6+

A) 16.Re1 looks very awkward after the forced 16...Ke7 17.Rf1, but after the black king bolts it with 17...Kd7 and A1) 18.Rxf6 Kc7 19.Rxf7+ Bd7, again I believe white can untangle. Instead, perhaps white can try A2) 18.Nxf6+ Kc7 19.Qg4 Rd8 20.Qg7 Qd4 21.Qxf7+ Kb8, when I will accept that white has compensation, but black still has an extra exchange and, after ...a6 and ...Ka7, will likely be able to untangle himself again. Black is definitely =/+ to -/+ here, but I accept white has drawing chances.

B) 16.Nxf6+ amounts to a transpositional move, since after 16...Kd8 black gains nothing from the variuos discovered checks, and therefore his best is to go for 17.Rf1 Kc7 18.Qg4 transposing to line A above.

However, it is not only white who is allowed to improve on his play here. If it turns out that white does have some chances after the exchange sac on f6, black can always investigate 11.Qe1 h6!, keeping the queen on d4 to prevent Qh4 and exchange sac ideas. It is not clear to me where white's best retreat square is - 12.Be3 blocks the e-file and further retreats seem illogical, so there look to be three options:

A) 12.Bxf6?! Bxf6 13.Rd1 Qe5 looks fine for black.

B) 12.Bh4 looks awkward to me, blocking h4 from the queen and removing Bxh6 ideas. However black has to take care of f6 sacs. Black might, however, be able to play the immediate 12...Qc5 and now all of white's ideas are thwarted - 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe4 f6! leads us via a transposition back into the original line white was trying to avoid! So, after 12...Qc5, white needs to find an improvement desperately on this - there doesn't appear to be an obvious one, though 13.Rb1!? is interesting with the idea of storming on the q-side

C) It might be that 12.Bf4 is the most sensible, keeping one eye on h6 and also intending Be5. 12...Bd6!? was my first idea, but it might be that 13.Nb5!? is worth a punt - 13...cxb5 14.Bxb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Rd1 Qxf4!? 17.Rxf4 Bxf4 18.Qe4! gives white dangerous chances, and 16...Bb4 17.c3 Bxc3 18.bc Qa4 19.Bd6 also provides sufficient compensation. Therefore the thematic 12...Qc5 again seems best, keeping one eye on b5 as well as on e7. Again white would like to play 13.Ne4 but again after Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Bf6 it's far from clear that white has enough for his material.

The main point though, ignoring all the analysis above but definitely worth mentioning, is that even in your "refutation" with 11.Qe1 Qc5 12.Qh4 h6 13.Bxf6, 13...gxf6! looks a clearly superior capture, where black has the two bishops as well as two pawns, and all white has to go at is a slightly weak f6 pawn. Black even has attacking chances of his own down the g-file. So, having humored your lines and agreed that one of them might give some hope of compensation, I have first of all removed that possibility by insterting 11...h6, and then blown it out of the water by suggesting black just recaptures with the g-pawn instead of the bishop. White has nothing, since the obvious looking 14.Ne4 fails miserably to 14...f5! and black is winning.

So nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid. The Zilbermints Variation in the Euwe Defence of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit is, not to put too fine a point on it, crocked.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 de 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 ef 5.Nxf3 e6!? 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.O-O Nxd4! 9.Kh1? c6! 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.Qe1 Qc5! (11...h6 -/+) 12.Qh4 h6 13.Bxf6 gxf6 -+ 

Man, I love this game.  

OT: I'm not particularly interested whether NM Jim West wins with "The Milky Way" as Moskalenko dubs it. I don't care that I win with it. After 4...b6 5.Nf3 Bb7 6.Nbd2 Nc5 7.b4 Ne6 8.Bb2 d6 Moskalenko claims compensation for black, citing Hartmann - W.Stein 2003. I see no compensation, and without wishing to give all my analysis away, feel that Hartmann made some obvious errors to concede the draw there.

Lev, if you think your gambit is good, show us the analysis.

I'll be very surprised if I don't find a rebuttal that at least leads to a nice =+ for Black.

I've noticed that the tripe about 9...c6 is still going on. Here's my line again: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6!? 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Kh1 c6 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.Qe1 Qc5 12.Qh4 h6 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe4 f6.

This line was analysed at http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1119806620/225 over 18 months ago. I'm still not aware of the line being busted. Where is white's comp? Any future responses on your so-called self-named gambit (which I will, in future, refer to as the Tripe Gambit), unless you produce some improvement, will be met with reposting of the exact same refutation.

Aye, but if I'd played 5.exd5 instead, my opponent might well have planned a continuation like 5...Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4, in which case you'd no doubt have called the same opponent a coward!

I would avoid Zilbermints's line simply because I don't think the Euwe Defence is one of Black's best counters (after 7.Qd2 I would rather be White).  On the other hand if I could be sure White would continue 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.0-0, then perhaps...

As far as cowardice goes, what would Zilbermints think of this continuation: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.c3 d5 5.Bd3 dxc3 6.exd5 cxb2 7.Bxb2 Qxd5.  At move 4 Black states the intention to "safely" avoid the double-pawn sacrifice that arises after 4...dxc3 5.Bc4!?, but after the unusual 5.Bd3, accepts both pawns anyway...

I decided to respond with a separate post. 

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 c6

Leisebein-Baer, correspondence, Germany 2000:

10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Qe1 Qb4 12 a3 Qg4 13 Bh4 Qh5 14 Qg3 Rf8 15 Rad1 Qg4 16 Qf2 g5 17 Bg3 Qh5 18 Qd4 Nd5 19 Nxd5 ed5 20 Qe5 f6
21 Qc7 Qg4 22 Bh7 Qd7 23 Bg6+ Rf7 24 Qa5 Kf8 25 Bf7 Kf7 26 c4 b6
27 Qd2 Kg7 28 Bf2 Ba6 29 Bd4 Kg6 30 Qc2+ f5 31 g4 Rf8 32 gf5+ Rxf5 33 Rde1 Bf6 34 Bxf6 Bxf6 35 Qd3 Rxf1 36 Rxf1, 1-0.

Leisebein-Matse Rohde, correspondence, Germany 2000:

10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Qe1 Qc5 12 Qh4 Qb6?? 13 Rxf6!! gf6 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Qxf6 Rf8 16 Bxh7, 1-0.

I will post 9...c5 games later.

This is a poll designed to see what defense the public here wants to play in the starting position after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1