And another Jaenisch by Radjabov against Karjakin. This time with no surprise effect at all (as he played this recently against him).
It seems like it will be major opening soon with result Radjabov is getting. White is yet to achieve even slight advantage vs him and the only way which seems kinda promising gives black huge compensation and pleasant position for the pawn which won't be in many people tastes.

Btw, there is a truly amazing queen sacrifice in Janish:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fe4 5.de4 Nf6 6.0-0 Bc5 7.Bc4!? d6 8.Nc3 Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 10.Bg5 Nd4

and now the star move Nd4 !! and if Bd1 then 12.Ne6 Be2 13.Ng7 Kd7 14.Ne2 and white has huge compensation. Some computer games were played from this position with great success for white. Does anybody played this OTB ? This whole line looks rather promising for white if black avoids the queen sacrifice.

15...Rhe8 16 a4 looks like the right move, then 16...a6 is reasonable, to allow the bishop to retreat, 17 f3 (it seems ...Nf3 might be a threat) 17...Ba7 and either 18 c3!? or 18 Bd2. Black definitely has compensation for a pawn, but is it enough?

FightingDragon wrote on 04/07/08 at 10:28:55:

It looks stronger to me, too, especially if White finds 15 Kh1!

Does anybody know why after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fe4: 5.de4: Nf6 6.0-0 Bc5 7.Qd3 d6 8.Qc4 Qe7 9.Nc3 Bd7 10.Nd5 Nd5: 11.ed5: Nd4 12.Bd7: Qd7: the top players played 13.Nd4: instead of the "main move" 13.Ne5: ?
Somehow Ne5: looks stronger to me (after all it wins a pawn, at least temporarily  ), but there might be a reason why they chose Nd4: instead.

Mm I am sorry I think I watched a wrong game, I tought Radjabov played something else.

The point is not on Rhf8 but on the fact of developping normally with 0-0-0 and then occupying the f-file with the rook, etc.

ArKheiN wrote on 03/03/08 at 05:21:53:



Sorry, I have overlooked your post. What exactly is the advantage of Rhf8 compared to Rdf8? Maybe you can explain it a little bit, as I dont get the point... For me the minor detail of the rook position doesnt change the evaluation of the poistion. But maybe I overlook something...

HgMan wrote on 03/02/08 at 14:42:32:


yeah, 21....dxc5 seems to be a satisfactory suggestion. But perhaps black can even play 21....Qe8, because after a forthcoming Rb5 white seems to have problems with his gnights on a4 and a5 and his pawn on c5. A sample line (admittedly cooperative play by white, just to iluustrate the ideas) being 22.a3? Rb5 23. b4? dxc5 -+

At the moment I think the most dangerous idea for black in the whole 4.d3 complex is following Macieja's example from the worldcup, although most sources have annotated this game "by result".
White should stick to 4.Nc3. Maybe its only a bluff to play the Jaenisch at this level? I really hope one of the strong guys will test Radjabov on that ground...

pioleiva wrote on 03/02/08 at 19:30:25:

Yes that kingwalk is good (I think it is the only way to not lose directly), but if white just moves the king towards the c-pawn and keeps the rook on the f-file he still is in no danger whatsoever. On the other hand it is indeed hard to see how white can win then.

pioleiva wrote on 03/02/08 at 00:27:03:


I appreciate your suggestions--and it's great to have a defender of these lines for Black in this forum.  I'd love to find that this is playable for Black (and if Radjabov is sticking with it, there must be something here...).  But I'm not sure I agree with your evaluation after 20...Rfb8.  White has the simple 21.Na5 when the c6 pawn is in trouble.  Black can't get in 21...Rb5 or 21...Rb4 at this point, because of 22.Nxc6 (21...Rb4 22.Nxc6 Qe8 [22...Rxa4? 23.Ne7+] 23.Nxb4 Qxa4 24.Nd5 with some interesting complications that all seem to favor White).

Black's best is perhaps:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.O-O Bc5 7.Qd3 d6 8.Qc4 Qe7 9.Nc3 Bd7 10.Bg5 a6 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Na4 Ba7 13.Qd3 Qf7 14.c4 O-O 15.c5 Bg4 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Nd2 Qg6 18.f3 Bh3 19.Rf2 Be6 20.Nc4 Rfb8 21.Na5 dxc5 22.Nxc6 c4 (not sure what else) 23.Ne7+ Kf7 24.Nxg6 cxd3 25.Nxe5+ Kf6 26.Nxd3 Rd8

This looks satisfactory for Black, who has weathered the storm, perhaps.  But you're right: maybe White needs to back up a little.  There should be a better way to lock that bishop in more effectively.  While the position looks fairly open, White's knights enjoy considerable activity in many lines here and can't be inferior to the bishops...

HgMan wrote on 03/01/08 at 13:20:59:



Thats a very interesting suggestion, but albeit a very risky one, as white surrenders both his bishops, his only plus being the incarceled black bishop on a7. Black has got the bishop pair (against knights in a fluid position, better prospects on the kingside and a better grip on the central squares. But chess is not only abaout evaluations, its also a very concrete game. and in the final position of your 16....Qxf6 variation whites position has certainly got more potential than blacks (but is he really worse in such an unbalanced position?).

Anyway, I think a considerable improvement for black is to be found after 16....Qxf6 17.Nd2 Qg6 18.f3 Bh3 19.Rf2 Be6 20 Nc4 Rfb8!
The queens rook is guarding the a7 bishop, white cant get b4 in and Rb5 (or Rb4) is coming. I dont say black is better, but its quite a mess. White can try to improve with 20.b4, but also then the immediate 20...a5! (Rfb8 is an option, too) is very strong. White has to play 21.bxa5 with an unclear position, because 21.a3? fails due to the unprotected rook on a1.

I offer 16..0-0-0 followed by 17..Rhf8 as a possible improvment to Black.

Zatara wrote on 03/01/08 at 06:11:52:

Well having played through the game I dont like it at all for black. He was constantly defending and had no chance whatsoever for more than a draw. I doubt this defending such a worse middle- and endgame is what Jaenisch players or even Petrov players for that matter want from their opening.

Interesting. Finally somebody tried this line against Radjabov. Still according to the commentary on chessbase.com white had clear and lasting advantage. There was a inaccuracy in the rook endgame letting black escape. Overall, the opening was a success for white, not for black, I suppose  .

Any improvements for black?

4.d3 is a second rate move. So is 2.c3 in the Sicilian, even though many players win with it.

Although theory in old lines can be very dogmatic (based in old views with zero comp. analysis), so it surely pays to do some analysis. One would be ahead (same as Kaspy in the Evans: Move is no good, but if you are ahead...)

Radjabov got a 22 move draw vs Anand in the Jänisch/Schliemann. Not too bad. (Aronian managed to win with the Marshall. Even better.  )

Holbox wrote on 12/11/07 at 14:35:21:


Already looked at

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1195530096

?
I am having fun as Black. Ignore TN's remark though, as it is as off the point as usual.

Quote:


I left my beloved pirc and my kid following some of your recomendations anywhere in the forum, and changed to a Chigorin against 1.d4, which was also in my repertoire but I hadn't worked it too much, and 1...e5 against 1.e4. My results are even being slightly better, even without hard preparation, which make feel I'm in the correct way. I'm following basically Davies repertoire book Play 1.e4 e5!, but I don't like the spanish exchange, and that's the reason which make me think in avoiding 3...a3 which, of course, must be the strongest, the richest and the most complex move.

As white I haven't defined yet my repertoire but at the moment, I'm studying Paul Morphy games which I hope it could give some ideas about where to go.

Thx for your attention.

[/quote]

The problem is that if Informator decide to sue anyone, it will probably be me!

[/quote]

Don't worry, I'm the lawyer 

Greetings,

I did look at 7. Bxc6, dc; 8. Nxe5, Bxf5.

The idea was to get the long-term advantage of pawn majorities on both sides of the board with the intention of exchanging off to an advantageous endgame as soon as possible. The only problem is that Black gets a good middlegame attack due to White's lack of development. For those who like living dangerously, it might be worth further study! 

Edit:
Further to the above, I'm giving the following line, which is a result of my analysis (along with my old version of Crafty-20.14). This by no means represents "best play" - I'm sure those here can find improvements for both sides. Any flaws in this line are my own.

9. Be3, Qe7; 10. Nc4, Rae8; 11. Nbd2, Ng4; 12. Bxc5, Qxc5; 13. Nb3, Qe7; 14. h3, Ne5; 15. Re1, Qf6; 16. Nxe5, Rxe5; 17. Rxe5, Qxe5; 18. c3, Re8; 19. Nd4, Be6; 20. Nxe6, Rxe6; 21. d4, Qe2; 22. Qxe2, Rxe2; 23. Rb2, Kf6; 24. g4, Rc2; 25. Kg2, Ke6; 26. Kf3, Kd6; 27. h4, h6; 28. Ke3, c5; 29. dc+, Kxc5; 30. f4, Kc4; 31. Ke4, Rh2; 32. h5, a5; 33. Kf5, Rd2; (+=/+- on the basis of the k-side pawn majority.)

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

rossia wrote on 11/30/07 at 16:33:36:


Sweet.... Although I am still using Chessbase 7 which does not have this Output feature,I have managed to find a satisfactory work around.

Posting ideas here should be a lot easier for me from now on. As a test to make sure I've got, I will post two of my recent efforts from a half hour team tournament that I accepted to play in after much trepidation due to a long competitive lay off:

 

TopNotch vs. An, International Master [B52]
Team Tourney, 24.11.2007 Time 30/30
[TopNotch]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ [Avoiding any nasty surprises in the Open Sicilians such as the Najdorf for instance, is usually a good policy in Rapid chess] Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.Re1 Nc6 7.c3 e6 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5 Ne4 11.Nbd2 Nxd2 12.Bxd2 Be7 13.Rc1 0-0 14.Rc3 [In my opinion the text move is the only good plan for White in this position. The main idea of this rook lift is to eventually swing it to the kingside to participate in a King hunt] Rfc8 15.a3 b5 16.Rd3 [An important preparatory move, which frees my Knight from the defence of the d pawn and buys me time to organise a Kingside raid.] 16...a5 [Very cold blooded. Black is in no way intimidated by my aggressive intentions ] 17.Ng5 [Worth investigating is 17.h4!?] 17...Bxg5 18.Bxg5 Ne7 19.Qh5 Ng6 20.Rh3 h6 21.Bxh6!? [In for a penny, in for a pound. My opponent admitted after the game that he considered this rubbish, while I on the otherhand did not see a clear way for Black to unravel after the sac. It turns out that we were both wrong.] gxh6 22.Qxh6 Rc4 23.Rg3 Rxd4 24.h4 Qe7 25.h5 Rh4? [He should have played 25...Qh4! 26.Rxg6+ fxg6 27.Qxg6+ Kf8 28.Qh6+ Kg8 29.Qg6+ Kf8 30.Qh6+ Kg8 31.Qg6+= and White is obliged to take the perpetual check] 26.Rc1?! [26.Ree3! Qf8 (26...Rc8 27.Ref3+- This is what I momentarily missed during the game, as I forgot my distant Queen is still covering the critical c1 square) 27.Qg5 Qd8 28.hxg6 Qxg5 29.Rxg5±] 26...Rd8?? [Better was 26...d4 but Black would still have big problems to solve after 27.Rd1 Ra7 (27...b4 28.Rdd3 bxa3 29.Rxa3 Rb8 30.Rxg6+ fxg6 31.Rg3+-) 28.Rg5 Qf8 29.Qxf8+ Kxf8 30.hxg6 fxg6 31.f3±] 27.Rcc3 [There is no satisfactory defence now] Qf8 28.Qg5 Rxh5 29.Qxh5 Qg7 30.Rcf3 d4 31.Rf6 Kf8 32.Rgxg6 1-0

A. FideMaster vs TopNotch [A21]
Team Tourney, 2007 Time 30/30
[TopNotch]

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 Be7 6.e3 0-0 7.Nge2 c6 8.0-0 Be6 9.b3 Na6 [Yrjola and Tella don't consider the 

risky text move, and suggest instead 9...d5 which indeed is a lot safer but also a lot less fun ] 10.d4! Qe8 11.Ba3 Rd8

12.Qc2 g5 Preparing e4 if need by securing the f4 square from a possible Knight incursion. As it turns out the text move 

also facilitates a strong Kingside attack 13.c5?! [In case of 14.Rd1 I had intended 14...e4 with a reasonable game] dxc5 

14.dxe5 Ng4 15.Na4 Qh5 16.h3 Nxe5 17.Nxc5 Nxc5 18.Bxc5 Nf3+ 19.Kh1 Rd2! [Also winning as pointed out by Fritz is 

19...f4! 20.Bxe7 Bxh3 21.Bxf8 Bg4+ 22.Bh3 Qxh3#] 20.Qc3 Bxc5 21.Ng1 Nxg1 22.Kxg1 Rd5! [The key to the combination] 23.Bxd5 

Bxd5 0-1

That didn't take very long to do at all, although I suppose the games could benefit from a bit more formatting which I'm sure I will get the hang of over time.

Much appreciated for the info Rossia.

Toppy

rossia wrote on 11/30/07 at 17:35:08:


Factually incorrect.  

Your payment at a "heavy price" no doubt also included your legally binding agreement to NOT share this very information with anyone.  It is called proprietary RIGHTS, and you are possibly in violation of it, whether you are in Russia, the Planet Tralfalmadore, or anywhere else in which other human beings can come into contact with you.

And, while your intent may be that of good will and altruism, it is irrelevant, because a higher law other than your own mental code of ethics likely takes precedence here.

You may want to at least try to hide under the umbrella of the Fair Use Doctrine, but even that would probably not apply because of your possible (ab/over)use of the info.



Just sayin.

rossia wrote on 11/30/07 at 15:49:15:


No. Everything here is not copyrighted. Making reference to analysis from books is quite different to copying entire analysis from CI. I don't think Tony likes that you do that. 

PS. I don't download music or movies. I buy CDs and DVDs.

How do you copy chess games from the Chessbase program, to the forum, I have tried to do this before without any luck.

Rossia I aprreciate your effort and enthusiasm, however it does tend to border on over-kill, and if accurate also raises some copyright concerns.

Further to my and Mnb's previous posts, I am not convinced that Black has gained equality after Davies and Harding's suggested line: 4.d3 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.exf5 0-0 7.Be3 [Serious thought should also be given to 7.Nxe5!?] Nd4 8.c3 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Be7 10.Nd2 c6 11.Ba4 d5 12.d4 e4 13.Qh3 g6 14.f3 reaching a position I consider better for White but requiring practical tests.

If only everyone would play the Schliemann then life would be so much simpler and enjoyable for White.

Toppy

Alias wrote on 11/30/07 at 15:25:23:


Well all analysis which we provide belongs to someone... After all we do not need this forum if we have all supplements in our sleeve...

My issue is that it clogs up threads, rnedering them pretty unreadable. 

Most people have access to databases, so where's the utility in a database dump. If the added value is in the analysis, surely then as Alias says, there's an intellectual property issue.

Why would he stop? it's quite useful and free. Thank you Rossia you are the welcome

@ Toppy: dear friend, here you have all games is Chess Informants dealing with 4.d3:
 
PART V: 

(86371) Geller,J (2415) - Kuzmin,G.P (2525) [C63]
Moscow Moscow, 2002
[Geller,J; Skatchkov,P]
85/310  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 Bc5 7.Qe2 d6 8.Qc4 Bb6 9.Nc3 [9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qxc6+ Bd7©; 9.Bg5!? Bd7 (9...h6? 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Nh4‚) 10.Nc3 Qe7 (10...h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nd5 Qg6 13.Nh4ƒ) 11.Nd5 Qf7 12.Rad1 (12.Be3!?) 12...Nxd5 (12...0–0? 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Nxf6++-) 13.exd5 …Nd4? 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 15.Rxd4! exd4 16.Re1+ Kf8 17.Be7+ Qxe7 18.Rxe7 Kxe7 19.Qxd4] 9...Bd7 10.Ng5 Qe7 11.Nd5 Nxd5 [11...Na5 12.Qd3 Bxb5 13.Qxb5+ c6 14.Nxe7 cxb5 15.Nf5] 12.exd5 Nd8 [12...Nd4?! 13.Bxd7+ Qxd7 14.c3 Nf5 15.a4! c6 16.Ne6ƒ; 12...Nb8 13.Bxd7+ (13.a4? c6µ) 13...Nxd7 14.a4 a5 15.Ne6 Nf8 (15...Nc5 16.Qb5+ Kf7 17.Nxc5 Bxc5 18.Be3²) 16.Qb5+ Kf7 17.Ng5+ Kg8 18.Ne4² … ¥e3] 13.Bxd7+ Qxd7 14.Qe4!?N [14.Be3 0–0 15.Rae1 h6 16.Ne4 Nf7=; 14.a4!? …c6 15.a5 Bc7 16.a6‚] 14...g6 [14...c6 15.c4ƒ] 15.a4 a5 [15...0–0 16.a5 Bc5 17.b4 Bd4 18.Ra3‚; 15...a6 16.a5 Ba7 17.Be3 0–0 18.Bxa7 Rxa7 19.f4‚] 16.Be3 [16.Kh1 …0–0 17.f4 Qf5 18.Bd2 h6 19.g4! Qxe4+ (19...Qf6 20.Nf3 exf4 21.Nh4!‚) 20.Nxe4 exf4 21.Bxf4 g5 22.Bd2ƒ; 16.Ra3 c6 (16...0–0?! 17.Rh3 Qf5 18.Qxf5 Rxf5 19.g4) 17.Be3 Bxe3 18.fxe3²] 16...0–0 [16...Bxe3?! 17.fxe3 Qe7 18.h4] 17.Bxb6 [17.f4 Rxf4 18.Rxf4 Bxe3+ 19.Qxe3 exf4 20.Qxf4 Nf7 21.Ne6; 17.Rae1 Bxe3 18.fxe3] 17...cxb6 18.f4 Qf5 [18...exf4 19.Rxf4 Rxf4 20.Qxf4 Rc8 21.Rf1 Qe7 22.c4+-; 18...Qe7 19.Rae1 Rc8 (19...Rf5 20.Nf3) 20.fxe5 Qxg5 21.Rxf8+ Kxf8 22.exd6 Nf7 23.d7 Rd8 24.h4! Qd2 (24...Qf6 25.Qe8+ Kg7 26.c3!+-) 25.Qe7+ Kg7 26.Rf1+-; 18...Rf5 19.g4!? Rxf4 20.Rxf4 exf4 21.Qxf4 Nf7 22.Ne6±] 19.fxe5 Qxg5 [19...Qxe4 20.Nxe4 Rxf1+ 21.Rxf1 dxe5 22.c4+-] 20.Rxf8+ Kxf8 21.Rf1+ Kg8 [21...Ke8? 22.exd6+ Kd7 23.h4!+-; 21...Ke7 22.e6 Rc8 23.c4© … b3; 21...Kg7 22.e6 Qe7 (22...Qe5? 23.Qf3 Qf5 24.Qc3+ Qe5 25.Qc7+ Kh6 26.Qe7+-) 23.c4©] 22.e6 [פd8] 22...Qe7 [22...Qe5 23.Qf3 Qf5 24.Qxf5 gxf5 25.Rxf5 (25.Re1 Nc6! 26.dxc6 bxc6=) 25...Rc8 (25...b5 26.axb5 Rc8 27.b6!) 26.c4 Rc7 27.Kf2] 23.c4 Rc8 24.b3 Rc7 [24...b5 25.axb5 b6 26.Qd4 Rc5 27.h4ƒ] 25.Qd4 [25.Qe3? b5! 26.axb5 a4!„] 25...Nxe6 26.dxe6 Qxe6 27.Qxb6 Re7 [27...Rc8 28.Qxb7 Qe3+ 29.Kh1 Rf8 30.Rxf8+ Kxf8 31.Qf3++-; 27...Rf7 28.Rxf7 Kxf7 (28...Qxf7 29.Qxa5+-) 29.Qxb7+ Ke8 30.Kf1!+-] 28.Qxa5 Qe3+ [28...Re8 29.Kh1!?] 29.Kh1 Kg7 [29...b6 30.Qd5+ Re6 31.h3] 30.Qd8 [30.Qd5!? Qf2 31.Qd3 Qe2 (31...Re3? 32.Qd4+ Kh6 33.Rxf2 Re1+ 34.Rf1 Rxf1+ 35.Qg1+-) 32.Qd4+ Re5 33.Rg1+-] 30...Rf7 31.Rxf7+ Kxf7 32.Qd7+ Kg8 33.Qc8+ Kg7 34.Qd7+ Kg8 [34...Kh6? 35.Qh3++-] 35.Qc8+ Kg7 36.Qxb7+ Kh6 37.h3 Qe1+ [37...Qc1+? 38.Kh2 Qf4+ 39.g3 Qd2+ 40.Qg2 Qc3 41.Qa2+-] 38.Kh2 Qe5+ 39.Kg1 Qe1+ 40.Kh2 Qe5+ 41.g3 Qb2+ 42.Qg2 Qxb3 43.Qd2+ Kg7 44.Qd4+ Kf7 45.Qxd6 Qxa4 [45...Qxc4? 46.Qf4++-] 46.Qd5+ Ke7 47.Qe5+ Kf7 48.c5 Qc2+ 49.Kg1 Qd2 50.h4 Qc2 51.Qd5+ Kf6 52.c6 Qe2 53.c7 Qe1+ 54.Kh2 Qf2+ 55.Qg2 Qc5 56.Qf3+ Ke7 57.Qf4 Kd7 58.Qf7+ Kc8 59.Qg8+ Kxc7 60.Qxh7+ Kd8 61.Qxg6 1–0

(86372) Bruzon,L (2565) - Gomez,F (2405) [C63]
Cuba (ch), 2002
[Bruzon,L]
85/(310)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 Bc5 * 7.Qd3!? Qe7 8.Nc3 Nd4!?N [8...a6; 8...0–0; 8...Nb4] 9.Nxd4 exd4?! [9...Bxd4!?] 10.Bg5!ƒ Qe5 [10...dxc3 11.e5 cxb2 12.Rae1 b1Q 13.Rxb1 0–0 14.exf6 gxf6 (14...Qe5 15.Bh4 c6 16.Rbe1 Qh5 17.fxg7 Rf4 18.Qg3 Rxh4 19.Be2+- …Qh6 20.Bc4+) 15.Bh6 c6 (15...Rd8 16.Qd5+ Kh8 17.Rfe1+-) 16.Rfe1 Qf7 17.Qg3+ Kh8 18.Bxf8 Bxf8 19.Bd3±] 11.Bxf6 gxf6 [11...gxf6 12.Nd5! c6 13.f4 Qd6 14.e5!!+- …Qxd5 15.Bc4]  ±

@ Toppy: dear friend, here you have all games is Chess Informants dealing with 4.d3:
 
PART III:

(43435) Kindermann,S (2525) - Geenen,M (2325) [C63]
Thessaloniki (ol) Thessaloniki, 1988
46/(415)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 * 4.d3 Nf6 5.exf5 Ne7 N [5...Bc5] 6.0–0 c6 7.Bc4 d6 8.Re1 Bxf5 9.Bg5 Qd7 10.Nc3 h6 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.d4 e4 13.Nh4 d5 14.Be2 Be6 15.Bh5+ Kd8 16.f3 f5÷ Line

(44263) Khalifman,A (2545) - Inkiov,V (2470) [C63]
Moscow Moscow, 1989
[Khalifman,A]
47/401  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 [4.Nc3 - 47/(401)] 4...fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 Bc5 7.Nc3 [7.Qe2 - 47/(401)] 7...d6 [7...0–0 8.Bc4+ Kh8 9.Ng5 Qe8 10.Nb5 Bb6 11.Be3!±] 8.Be3!? Bb6 [8...Bxe3 9.fxe3 0–0 (9...Bg4 10.Qd3±) 10.Bc4+ Kh8 11.Ng5 Bg4 12.Qe1!±] 9.Nd5 0–0 [9...Nxe4] 10.Bg5 [10.Bc4] 10...Kh8 11.a4!? [11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nh4 Nd4 13.Bd3 c6÷] 11...Bg4?! [11...Ne7! 12.a5 Bc5 13.Ra4!?÷] 12.Be2 Bxf3 [12...Ne7 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Nxe7 Bxf3! (14...Qxe7 15.Nh4 Be6 16.Bg4±) 15.Bxf3 Qxe7 16.Bg4²] 13.Bxf3 Ne7 14.Nxf6! [14.Bxf6] 14...gxf6 15.Bh6 Rg8 16.a5 Bc5 17.c3 a6 18.Bh5! [18.g3 c6 … d5, f5] 18...Ng6 [18...f5 19.Bf7±] 19.Kh1² [19.Qd5 Rb8 … £e7, ¤f4(19...c6? 20.Qf7!±) ] 19...Qe7 20.g3 c6 21.Qf3 Nf8?! [21...Rad8 22.Rad1 … ¦d2, ¦fd1±] 22.Rad1 Ne6? [22...Rd8] 23.b4! Ba7 24.Rxd6 Rad8 [24...Qxd6 25.Qxf6++-; 24...Ng5 25.Qxf6+ Qxf6 26.Rxf6 Nxe4 27.Rf7+-; 24...Nf4 25.Rd2+-] 25.Rfd1! Ng7 [25...Nd4 26.Qxf6++-; 25...Ng5 26.Bxg5! fxg5 27.Rxd8 Rxd8 28.Rxd8+ Qxd8 29.Qf7+-] 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Rxd8+ Qxd8 28.Bf7+- Qe7 29.Bc4 f5 [29...c5 30.Qg4] 30.exf5 Qf6 31.Bxg7+ Kxg7 32.Kg2 Kf8 33.Qd3 Qe7 [33...Ke7 34.Be6] 34.Qd2! Kg7 35.Qe2 e4 36.Be6 Qf6 37.Qg4+ Kh6 38.Qxe4 Qxc3 39.Qh4+ Kg7 40.Qg5+ Kf8 41.f6 1–0

(45005) Martin,Andrew (2415) - Inkiov,V (2470) [C63]
Gausdal Gausdal, 1989
[Martin,Andrew]
47/(401)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 Bc5 * 7.Qe2 N 7...d6 8.Qc4 Qe7 9.Nc3 [9.b4 Be6 10.Qc3 Nxe4 11.Qd3 Nxf2÷] 9...Bd7 10.Nd5 [10.Bg5 a6] 10...Nxd5 11.exd5 Nd4 12.Bxd7+ Qxd7! 13.Nxd4 [13.Nxe5 Qf5! 14.b4 b5 15.Qd3 Qxe5 16.Bb2 0–0 17.bxc5 dxc5 18.Bxd4 Qxd4 19.Qxb5 Qxd5=] 13...Bxd4= Line

(45795) Abramovic,B (2465) - Perovic,D (2345) [C63]
Wien, 1989
[Perovic,D]
48/436  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 Bc5 7.Nc3 d6 8.Be3 Bb6 9.Nd5 0–0 10.Bg5 Kh8 11.a4 Bc5!? N [11...Bg4 - 47/401] 12.c3 a5 13.Bc4 Be6!? 14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Bxe6 fxg5 16.Bg4 Qf6 [×f2] 17.Qe2 Ne7÷ 18.Nd2? [18.Ne1 … ¤d3$; 18.g3!? … ¢g2, ¦h1, h4$; 18.h3!? … ¤h2$] 18...Rf7!³ 19.Bh5 Rg7 [… g4] 20.h3 Rag8 21.g3 g4!µ 22.hxg4 [22.Bxg4 h5] 22...Ng6 23.Nf3 [23.Bxg6 Rxg6 24.Kg2 Rxg4 25.Nf3 (25.Rh1 (… ¦h3) 25...Bxf2! 26.Qxf2 Rxg3+ 27.Kf1 (27.Qxg3 Rxg3+ 28.Kxg3 Qg5+–+) 27...Qg7–+) 25...Qf4 26.Rae1 Bxf2! 27.Rxf2 (27.Qxf2? Rxg3+ 28.Kh1 Rxf3!–+; 27.Kxf2 Qxg3+ 28.Ke3 Rf8 … d5–+) 27...Qxg3+ 28.Kh1 d5! (28...R8g6 29.Rh2! … £f2) 29.Ref1 (29.Rg1? Qh3+ 30.Rh2 Qxf3+!) 29...R8g6–+] 23...Nf4! 24.gxf4 Qh6! [24...Qxf4? 25.Nh2+-; 24...Rxg4+? 25.Bxg4 Rxg4+ 26.Kh1 Qh6+ 27.Nh2 Rh4 28.f3+-] 25.Ng5 exf4! 26.Kg2 [26.Nf7+ Rxf7 27.Bxf7 Qh3! 28.Bxg8 f3 29.Qxf3 Qxf3 30.Be6 Qg3+ 31.Kh1 Qh3+ 32.Kg1 h5!–+; 26.Kh1 Rxg5 27.f3 Rxh5+ 28.gxh5 Rg5–+] 26...Rxg5 27.Kh3 Rxh5+! 28.gxh5 Rg5 29.Kh4 Qf6 30.Kh3 f3 0–1

(50822) Apicella,M (2455) - Sharif,Me (2415) [C63]
France (ch), 1991
[Apicella,M]
52/326  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 Bc5 7.Nc3 [7.Qe2 - 52/(326)] 7...d6 8.Bg5 [8.Bc4!? - 52/(326)] 8...0–0 9.Nd5 Kh8 10.Nh4 Nd4 11.Bc4!? N [11.Bd3 - 26/272] 11...b5 12.Bd3 c6 13.Nxf6 gxf6 14.Be3 Rg8 15.Kh1 Rg4 16.g3 Rg8 [… ¥h3] [16...Qg8? 17.c3 Ne6 18.Nf5±] 17.f3 [17.c3? Bg4 18.Qc1 (18.f3 Nxf3–+) 18...Nf3µ] 17...Bh3 18.Rg1 Ne6 [18...Nb3 19.Bxc5 Nxc5 20.Qd2²] 19.Qd2 [19.Bxc5 Nxc5 20.Qd2² (20.g4? Ne6 21.Rg3 Nf4µ) ] 19...Bxe3 20.Qxe3 [… f4] 20...Ng5 21.f4 Nf7 22.a4! [22.Be2? Qb6!³] 22...a6 23.Be2 Be6 [23...Qd7 24.f5 Ng5 25.Nf3 Nxf3 26.Bxf3 Bg4 27.Bxg4 Rxg4 28.axb5 cxb5 29.h3 Rg5 30.Rad1²] 24.Bh5 Qe7 25.f5 Bd7 26.Bxf7 [26.axb5 axb5 27.Ra7 Rxa7 28.Qxa7 Ng5 29.Re1 d5³ ”] 26...Qxf7 27.g4! [27.Qh6 Rgd8 28.Rad1 d5÷] 27...c5“ [… ¥c6] [27...d5 28.Rg3 Rg7 29.Rag1‚] 28.Rad1 Qf8 29.Rg3 Rg5 [29...Rg7? 30.Qh6; 29...Bc6?! 30.Rh3 Kg7 31.g5; 29...Ra7! 30.Nf3 (30.Rh3? Rxg4! 31.Ng6+ Rxg6µ) 30...Bc6 31.h4 Rd7 32.g5 d5„] 30.Ng6+ [30.Rh3? Rxg4! 31.Ng6+ Rxg6 32.fxg6 Bxh3 33.Qxh3 Ra7³] 30...hxg6 31.h4 gxf5 32.hxg5 f4 33.Rh3+ Kg7 [33...Kg8?! 34.Qd3 Bxg4 35.Qd5+ Kg7 36.gxf6+ Kxf6 37.Qxd6+ Qxd6 38.Rxd6+ Ke7 39.Rhh6±] 34.gxf6+ Qxf6 35.Qd3 Bc6! 36.Qxd6 Bxe4+ 37.Kg1 Qxd6 38.Rxd6 [¦ 9/o] 38...Re8 [38...Bxc2 39.axb5 axb5 40.Rc3±] 39.c3 bxa4 40.Rxa6 Bg6?! [40...Rd8 41.Rxa4 Rd1+ 42.Kf2 Bd3=] 41.g5!² e4 42.Ra7+ Bf7 [42...Kg8?! 43.Rh6 Re6 44.Rxa4 e3 45.Rxf4 e2 46.Rxg6+ Rxg6 47.Kf2±] 43.Rh4 e3 44.Kf1 [44.Rxf4 e2 45.Rfxf7+ Kg6 46.Rfe7 e1Q+ 47.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 48.Kf2 Rb1 49.Rxa4 Rxb2+ 50.Ke3 Kxg5=] 44...Kg6 45.Rxf4 Bb3 46.Rg4 Kf5! 47.Rg1 Bc4+ [47...Kf4? 48.Ke2! Bc4+ (48...Rd8 49.Rf1+) 49.Ke1] 48.Ke1 Rb8!= 49.Rxa4 [49.Ra5 Rxb2 50.Rxc5+ Kg6 51.Rc6+ Kf5 52.Rxc4 Rb1+ 53.Ke2 Rxg1 54.Rc5+ Ke4=] 49...Rxb2 50.Rxc4 Rb1+ 51.Ke2 Rxg1 52.Kxe3 [52.Rxc5+ Ke4 53.Rc4+ Kd5 54.Ra4 Rg3=] 52...Re1+ 53.Kd3 Rd1+ 54.Kc2 Rd5 55.Ra4 Kxg5 56.Kb3 Kf6 57.Kc4 Ke6 58.Ra5 Rd1 59.Kxc5 Kd7 60.c4 Rh1 61.Kb6 Rc1 [61...Rb1+ 62.Rb5 Rc1 63.c5 Kc8=; 61...Kc8 62.Ra8+ Kd7 63.Ra7+ Kc8 64.c5 Rb1+ 65.Kc6 Kb8 66.Rh7 Rc1=] 62.Rc5 Rb1+ 63.Rb5 Rc1 64.c5 Kc8 65.Rb2 Kb8 66.Kc6+ Kc8 67.Rh2 Kb8 68.Rh8+ Ka7 69.Rh7+ Kb8 70.Rb7+ Kc8 71.Re7 Kb8 72.Re8+ Ka7 73.Rd8 Rc2 74.Kd6 Kb7 75.Rd7+ Kc8 76.Rg7 Rc1 77.Kc6 ½–½

@ Toppy: dear friend, here you have all games is Chess Informants dealing with 4.d3:
 
PART II:

(20551) Banas,J - Ivanovic,B [C63]
Stip Stia, 1979
[Banas,J]
28/262  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 [4.Nc3 - 28/(262)] 4...Nf6?! [4...fxe4] 5.exf5 Bc5 6.0–0 0–0 7.Be3 Nd4 8.c3 [8.Nxe5? Qe7–+] 8...Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Be7 10.Nd2 c6 11.Ba4 d5 12.d4 e4 13.Qh3² g6 14.g4 h5 [14...gxf5 15.gxf5 Qd7 16.f3²] 15.f3 exf3 16.gxh5 Bxf5 17.Qxf3 Ng4?! [17...Nxh5 18.Qg2²] 18.Bf4± g5 19.Bg3 Qd7 20.Rae1 Rae8 [20...Bc2? 21.Qe2+-] 21.Bd1 Nh6 22.Qg2 Rf7 23.Be5 Ref8 [23...Bh3 24.Rxf7! Bxg2 25.Rg7+ Kf8 26.Kxg2+-] 24.Qg3 Bh3 25.Rxf7 Rxf7 26.Bc2 g4? [26...Bf5 27.Bxf5 Qxf5 28.Nf1 Qc2 29.Qg2±] 27.Bg6+- Rf8 28.Qe3 Nf5 [28...Nf7 29.Bxf7+ … £h6+-] 29.h6! Rf7 30.Qf4! g3 31.Bxf7+ Kh7 32.hxg3 Bf8 33.Bh5 Bxh6 34.Qf2 c5 35.Bf4 cxd4 36.cxd4 Qg7 37.Kh2 Bg4 38.Bxg4 Qxg4 39.Bxh6 Nxh6 40.Qf4 1–0

(20552) Kholmov,R - Tatai,S [C63]
Budapest Budapeste, 1979
[Kholmov,R]
28/263  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 [4.Nc3 - 28/(263)] 4...fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 d6 [6...Bc5 - 28/(263)] 7.Nc3 Be7 8.Qd3 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 0–0 11.Qd3!? Kh8 12.Be3 Qe8 13.Nd5 Bd8 [13...Nxd5 14.exd5 Nb4 15.Qc4 (15.Bxe8 Nxd3 16.cxd3 Rfxe8 17.Rac1 Rec8 18.Rc2²) 15...c6 16.Qxb4 cxb5 17.a4²] 14.c3 Qg6 15.f4 exf4 [15...Nxe4? 16.f5! Rxf5 17.Qxe4 Rxf1+ 18.Rxf1 … ¦f8#; 15...Qxe4?! 16.Qxe4 Nxe4 17.fxe5±] 16.Nxf4 Qe8 [16...Qxe4? 17.Qxe4 Nxe4 18.Ng6+!+-] 17.Rae1 Ne5! 18.Bxe8 [18.Qe2! c6 19.Bd3 Bb6³] 18...Nxd3 19.Nxd3 Rxe8 20.e5!² dxe5 21.Bd4 Kg8! [21...e4?! 22.Nc5 b6 23.Nxe4!±] 22.Nxe5 Be7 23.Nc4 Nd7 24.Na5 Bc5 [24...b6 25.Nc6 Bf6 26.Bxf6 Nxf6 27.b4²] 25.Bxc5 Nxc5 26.b4 Ne4?! [26...b6!?] 27.Nxb7² Nxc3 28.a3 Nb5 29.a4 Nc3 30.Nc5 c6 31.a5 Rab8 32.Na6! Rbd8 33.Kh2 [… 34. ¦e8 ¦e8 35. ¦c1 ¦e3 36. ¤b8 ¤a2 37. ¦c4+-] 33...Rxe1 34.Rxe1 Kf7?“ [34...Nd5!? 35.Re6 Rc8 36.Rd6 Nf6!²] 35.Rc1+- Rd3 36.Nb8 Na2 37.Rxc6 Nxb4 38.Rc7+ Kg6 39.Rxa7 Ra3 40.Rb7 Nd5 41.a6 h5 42.a7 h4 43.Nc6 1–0

(21098) Hulak,K - Tatai,S [C63]
Stip Stia, 1979
[RR]
28/(263)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 * 6...Bc5 7.Nc3 d6 8.Be3 Bb6 9.Nd5 0–0 10.Bc4 Kh8 11.Ng5 Bg4 12.Qd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Nd4 15.Bd3 Rf4?? [15...h6=] 16.Qxf4 1–0

(21457) Schneider,A - Gruenfeld,Y [C63]
Beer_Sheva, 1980
[Gruenfeld,Y]
29/227  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 Bc5! [6...d6 - 29/(227)] 7.Bxc6 [7.Nc3 - 26/272] 7...bxc6 8.Nxe5 0–0 9.Qe2?! [9.Nc3!?] 9...Qe7 10.Nd3 Ba6 11.Nc3 Bd4 12.Re1 Rae8 13.e5 Bxd3 [13...Qf7!?] 14.Qxd3 Bxe5 [14...Qc5? 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.Qxe3 Qxe3 17.Rxe3 Ng4 18.Re4 Nxf2 19.Rd4 Rxe5 20.Rxd7±] 15.Bf4 Ng4 16.Bxe5 Nxe5 17.Qe3?! [17.Qg3 Qf7! 18.Re2 d6] 17...Qb4! 18.Qd2 Qg4 19.Kh1 Nc4 20.Qc1 Qd4 [20...Rxe1+ 21.Qxe1 Nxb2µ] 21.f3 d5 22.Rb1 Qf2 23.Rf1 Qd2 24.Rd1 Qxc1 25.Rdxc1 Re3 26.Re1 Rfe8 27.Rxe3 Rxe3 28.Kg1?!“ [28.h3³] 28...d4 29.Ne4 Re2 30.c3 d3–+ 31.Nf2 Nxb2 32.Kf1 Rc2 33.Nd1 Nc4 0–1

(21919) Romanishin,O - Lombardy,W [C63]
Mexico Mexico, 1980
29/(227)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0–0 * 6...d6 7.Nc3 Be7 8.a4 0–0 9.Bc4+ Kh8 10.Ng5 Qe8 11.Be6 h6 12.Bxc8 Qxc8= Line

(23842) Rigo,J - Meleghegyi,Cs [C63]
Tapolca Tapolca, 1981
31/(382)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 * 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Bc5 7.Nc3 d6 8.0–0 0–0 9.Nd5 Kh8 10.c3 Ne7 11.b4 Nexd5 12.exd5 Bb6 13.a4 a6 14.Be2 Qe8³ Line

(23843) Rajna,Gy - Meleghegyi,Cs [C63]
Budapest Budapeste, 1981
31/(382)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 * 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Bc5 7.Nc3 d6 8.Qe2 a6 9.Ba4 Be6 10.Rd1 0–0 11.0–0 h6 12.Bh4 Nd4= Line

(26716) Rajna,Gy - Yudasin,L [C63]
Budapest Budapeste, 1982
[Livshits,A; Yudasin,L]
34/393  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.Bg5 [6.0–0 - 34/(393)] 6...Bc5 7.Nc3 d6 8.Bxf6!? N [8.Qe2 - 31/(382)] 8...Qxf6 9.Nd5 Qd8 [9...Qg6!? 10.0–0 (10.Nxc7+ Kd8 11.Nxa8 Qxg2 12.Rf1 Rf8 13.Be2 Bg4÷) 10...0–0 (10...Bb6 11.a4 Bh3 12.Nh4 Qg5™ 13.a5 Qxh4 14.gxh3! 0–0 15.axb6 Nd4 16.Qg4 Qxg4+ 17.hxg4 Nxb5 18.c4±) 11.Nxc7 Bh3 12.Nh4 Qg5 13.Nxa8 Qxh4 14.gxh3 Qxh3÷] 10.b4!? [10.0–0? 0–0 … ¥g4µ] 10...Bb6 11.a4 a6 12.Nxb6 [12.Bc4 Ba7 13.b5 (13.0–0 Bg4µ) 13...Na5 14.Ba2 c6 … ¦f8, ¥g4µ] 12...cxb6 13.Bc4 Nxb4!? [13...Bg4 14.h3² (14.c3 Qf6÷) ; 13...Qc7 14.b5 (14.c3 Nxb4) 14...Nd4 (14...Nb4 15.Bb3 Qc3+ 16.Nd2 … 0–0, ¤c4±) 15.Nxd4 Qxc4 16.Ne2 Ke7 17.0–0 axb5 18.Ng3÷] 14.Qd2! [14.0–0 Qc7 15.Bb3 Bg4 … ¦f8, 0–0–0; 14.Rb1 Nc6 15.Qd5 Rf8 16.Rd1 Ke7³] 14...Nc6 15.Ng5 Qc7?! [15...Qf6 16.Nf7 Rf8 17.Nxd6+ Ke7 18.Rd1 Nd4÷; 15...Rf8 16.Nxh7 Rf4 17.0–0 Qh4 18.g3 Qxh7÷] 16.Nf7 Nd4 [16...0–0 17.Qxd6!+-; 16...Rf8 17.Nxd6+ Ke7 18.Qg5+ Kxd6 19.0–0–0+ Kc5 (19...Nd4 20.Rxd4+ exd4 21.Qg3+ Kd7 22.Qxg7++-) 20.Rd5+ Kxc4 21.Qe3 Nd4 22.Kb2 … £c3#] 17.c3 [17.Nxh8 Qxc4–+ ‚] 17...0–0 18.Nh6+ [¹18.cxd4 Qxc4 19.Nxd6 Qxd4 20.Qxd4 exd4² ] 18...Kh8 19.Nf7+ Rxf7!? 20.Bxf7 Nf3+! 21.gxf3 Qxf7 22.Qxd6! Bh3 23.Rg1 [23.Rd1 Rf8ƒ; 23.0–0–0 h6 … £b3] 23...Qxf3 24.Qxe5 Bg4 25.Rxg4 Qxg4 26.Rd1 Rf8 [26...h6 27.Rd6²] 27.Qf5! Qxf5 [27...Qxd1+ 28.Kxd1 Rxf5 29.exf5 Kg8 30.Ke2 Kf7 31.Ke3 b5 32.axb5 (32.a5? Ke7 33.Ke4 Kd7 … b6–+) 32...a5 33.Kd4=] 28.exf5 ½–½

(27316) Yudasin,L - Inkiov,V [C63]
Minsk Minsk, 1982
[Livshits,A; Yudasin,L]
34/(393)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 * 6.0–0 Bc5 7.Nc3 0–0 8.a3?! N 8...d6 9.Na4? Bb6 10.Nxb6 axb6 11.c3 Kh8 12.Re1 Qe8 [… £g6µ ] Line

This is what I found in my databases, perhaps it will be useful to someone:

Schliemann [C63]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3

[4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6!; 
4.exf5 e4 
(4...Bc5 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Bxf5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6? hxg6! White would have welcomed 9.Qxh8 Qe7+ 10.Kd1 (10.Kf1 Bxc2 simply (10...0-0-0 is very strong too) 11.Qxg8+ Kd7 12.Qc4 (12.Qxa8 Bd3+ 13.Kg1 Qe1#) 12...Re8 13.g3 Qe1+ 14.Kg2 Qxf2+ also wins quickly for Black.) 
10...Bxf2! 11.Qxg8+ Kd7 12.Qc4 (12.Qxa8 Bg4#) 12...Re8-+) 5.Qe2 Qe7] 

4...fxe4

[4...Nd4?! 5.Bd3!? fxe4 6.Nxe4 d5? 7.Nxd4! dxe4 (7...exd4 8.Qh5+) 8.Qh5+ g6 (8...Kd7 9.Qxe5 or (9.Qf5+ Kd6 10.Nb5+) 9...exd3 10.Qe6# was another quick way for Black to exit.) 9.Qxe5+ Qe7 10.Bb5+! Bd7 11.Qxc7 (11.Qxh8 Nf6) ] 

5.Nxe4 d5 A major alternative is [5...Nf6] 

6.Nxe5

[6.Ng3 Bg4 7.h3 (7.0-0? is inaccurate on account of 7...Qf6) 7...Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 (8...Qd6 , planning ...0-0-0 with a perfectly playable position.) ] 

6...dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.f4 Qxf4 10.d4 Qh4+

[10...Qd6 11.Ne5+!] 

11.g3 Qh3 12.Ne5+ 

[12.Nxa7+ c6 13.Nxc8 Rxc8 14.Bc4 Bd6] 

12...c6 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bg5 0-0-0 15.0-0-0 Bd6 16.Rhf1 Rhf8 17.g4! Rde8 18.Bxe6+ Rxe6 19.Rf5! With a cunning tactical idea in mind... 19...h6

[19...Rfe8?? 20.Bxf6 gxf6 21.Rh5 Qxh5 22.gxh5 fxe5 23.Qxe4 h6 24.dxe5 Bxe5 25.Qf5 Kc7 26.a4 a6 27.h3 R8e7 28.Kb1 Rf6 29.Qg4 Bf4?! 30.Rf1 Ref7] 

20.Bxf6 Rexf6 21.Rh5 Qf1 kept Black in the fight in a 1991 game V.Zakharov-V.Ivanov

4.d3 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.exf5 0-0 7.Be3 Nd4 8.c3 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Be7 10.Nd2 c6 11.Ba4 d5 12.d4 e4 13.Qh3 g6 14.g4 (14.f3!? = according to Davies and Harding) Banas-Ivanovic, Stip 1979, gxf5 15.gxf5 Ne8!? and White is not quite winning. 

Nigel Davies says in Gambiteer II that 4.d3 lines are not a problem for black as many other writers have proclaimed. I haven't studied the recomended lines yet, but the idea is to avoid that white's queen arrives to c4, then black should wait to take on e4, I mean 4.d3 Nf6 5...Bc5 6...0-0. I'm really interested in learning the Schliemann which I think would be a good weapon at my level (2100).   

Pd. Markovich, if you ever read this,  what do you prefer for a new 1..e5 player 3...Bc5, or 3...f5 in the Spanish game? 

In NIC-Yearbook 73 Van der Tak wrote an article about 
1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d3 
Sending the Schliemann to the Museum

well 2004 Radjabov was probably too young to read it 

At the World Cup today, Radjabov faced 1.e4 and rolled out... the Jaenisch?!  And promptly lost.  GM Grivas's annotations are at: 

http://www.chessbase.com/news/2007/games/grivas04.htm

I can't help wondering what Radjabov might have had in mind against the more critical lines following 4.Nc3.  Any ideas?  Nice idea and potential for surprise value.  I can only imagine that Macieja must have been a little surprised by move 3.