Dude, I don't know what you've been drinking, but please send some of it my way will you?

Just because I give a computer evaluation, doesn't mean I use/need a computer to think for me. Further, a pawn's worth of compensation when white is two pawns down nets out at being a pawn down, hence losing - I see no contradiction whatsoever and as usual your chess arguments, much like any other arguments of yours, are logically flawed. This line is tripe. Making comments about other people using programs as educational tools will not make it any less tripe. I've got where I am OTB and in correspondence without computer assistance, and I've beaten players far stronger than you in both forms - however I've never played someone who's willing to play something this bad OTB against me. When analysing a silly unsound gambit then there's no problem using a computer to confirm your belief that white's position is not worth two pawns, and you don't need a computer to tell you that in this case.

As for a tournament game, I only hope one day I get the privilege to play black against you in this line. The endgame is one of my stronger areas, and being two pawns up with a solid position against somebody as arrogant as you would be a pleasure, as I slowly consolidated, swapped off the pieces and smirked as I queened those pawns. "I will beat you..." comments are incredibly amusing, and I can only recommend that you need go back to school if they are the recourse you must take when one of your lines is shown to be inadequate, along with "precious computer..." comments. I'm just waiting for the "yo momma..." jokes now...

Until you post your next pathetic attempt to demonstrate that white has anything more than hopes and dreams for his material defecit,

Best wishes,
Craig

Oh, and by the way... just because you play one of your home-made gambits OTB doesn't mean you'll beat them with it. Some people handle unusual positions better than others. Most people handle positions where they're two pawns up pretty well, however...

Well Lev, you've had three days to think about it, what's your continuation for white here which wins back a pawn and justifies compensation for the other one? I've had a good long look at this and I see nothing.

Although Junior 9 is giving white about a pawn's worth of compensation here, it's usually pretty optimistic in these sorts of positions for the side which is down in material... as long as black is careful, he's two pawns up here and that means - + to me.

Regards,
Craig

EDIT: On the basis of the above information, 9.Kh1! should actually read 9.Kh1??. Another blunder down in the history books for LDZ, perhaps?

Am I missing something here? After 13.Bb5 Qe8 I don't see how white is winning a pawn back, and although white has some compensation, I can't see any strong continuations for white.

Your idea of 12Bh4 does look better than 12Qh4 as played. I assume that you have improvements over the Sawyer-Just game also in 1996.

9...Nc6! is the move as played in Drueke-Sawyer 1997 BDG thematic tournament.