@Markovich

I agree with you about 18.Bf3, Kc7! in the long Christiansen variation after 14.Nf7!?.
But just wondering:
if the king is going queenside anyway, maybe the following is sufficient for a small (tiny?) white advantage:

18.Rd1, Kc7 19.Na3!? (with the idea that depending on blacks plan the knight can either go
to b5 or to c4/icw Bf4; perhaps white can also cramp black a bit further with a4/a5):  19....Bd7 20.Rb1 (attack on b7), Bc6 21.Nb5+ getting at least a pair of B's in an open position.

Or am I missing some deadly tactic?

@TonyKosten
A small point about transpositions:
8...d5 9.exd,Ne5 10.Qxd4,f6

Now 11.Re1,N7g6 transposes back to the Christiansen lines
Instead black can play 11...Bb6
when the white tactic 12.Bb5+,c6 (12...Bd7 is safe and sound)  13.xc6,Bxd4 14.cxb7,Bd7 backfires
and  12.Qh4,Bf5 is perfectly playable Toth-Djurdevic, Belgrade 2003.

belgian wrote on 08/28/07 at 21:14:57:


As observed in the original post, Marin in recent his 1...e5 book claims that White has a significant initiative after 11. Qh5+.  Who am I to doubt a GM, but I am not entirely sure that that's true, since White has no pieces out.  11...g6 12. Qxa5 d5 at first sight looks perfectly adequate.   E.g. 13. Bg5 c6  14. Qc5 (so as to meet 14...dxe4 with 15. Qe5) 14...h6  15. Bxe7 Qxe7  16. Qxd4 Rd8 and it's a very dynamic game with opposite pawn majorities, but how is Black worse?  Still, instead of 13. Bg5, White has 13. f3.  But after 13...b6  14. Qa4 d3  15. Rd1 Qd6 is White better?  How?

This could be important because 8...Ne5 sidesteps 8...d5 9. exd5 Ne5  10. Qd4 as upheld by Christiansen on Silman's website.  As you point out, 8...Ne5  9. Bb3 d5  10. exd5 transposes into 8...d5 9. exd5 Ne5  10. Bb3.  White also has 10. cxd4 and 10. Qxd4.  After the first, Black seems to stand well enough with 10...Ng4; after the second, 10...N7g6 appears adequate, e.g. 11. exd5 0-0.   

But I even doubt Christiansen, who claims that 8...d5  9. exd5 Ne5  10. Qd4 N7g6  11. Re1 f6 12.d6 Bb6 13.Qd5 Qd7  14. Nf7"!" c6 (I don't like Christiansen's 14...Qf5 because of 15. Qd2)  15. Nxe5 cxd5  16. Nxd7+ Kxd7  17. Bxd5 Kxd6  18. Bf3 and Christiansen says "White has a clear plus (or at least this position is much easier to play for White)."  Well, this makes two different GMs that I disagree with in one note!  Call me an idiot, but I fail to see any pull at all for White after 18...Kc7.  What is he talking about?  E.g. 19. Na3 Bd7  20. Nc4 Bc5 =.

But having said all this, I really think that the sternest test of the Evans is to go for the "Normal Position" with 4...Bxb4  5. c3 Ba5  6. d4 exd4  7. 0-0 Bb6!  8. cxd4 d6.   Black has a sound position and an extra pawn, and the burden is upon White to prove that he has enough for it.  That is the position that I would encourage everyone to take a good look at.  The best source of which I am aware, and a rather complete one, is the 1997 edition of Play the Evans Gambit by Harding and Cafferty. 

belgian wrote on 07/03/07 at 20:59:51:

Did you have a look at my post of Re: Kaufman's 10.Qd4 in the Evans Gambit
Reply #2 - 03/23/07 at 09:19:29 which handles mainly d5? Any comment?

I should add that if you can make it work, the Bd6 variation would probably be the best thing to play, in Ba5 black has to know the theory and bend over backwards for a while. No sweat for Aronian (look the game up) but not so easy for the rest of us.

As per Holbox,

...Bd6 indeed worth considering.

Article in SOS 3  pp117-126 (ed. Bosch J.) Designated the 'Stoneware' defence therein. Played by some big guys, so pretty sound one would think.

The earlier thread(s) on this question weren't very helpful.

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4!? Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O Nge7! 8. Ng5 Ne5!?, how does one respond to 9. Qxd4 ?

And, is Black OK after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4!? Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O Nge7! 8. Ng5 Ne5!? 9. Nxf7 Nxf7 9. 10. Bxf7+ Kxf7 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Qxa5 d5 ?


<belgian/>