As to whether anyone still plays it, I've had IM Branko Filipovic play it against me (and last I checked he still seems to just play b6 stuff as black all the time). Looking at the game the computer doesn't seem to like his position after 9...Nc6 that much, but 10.Nb5 is not the right reply and neither is 10...Qe8 that great in return, neither 11.Nxd6 such a great idea in return and he was then probably better after move 13 or so. So the game's hardly of theoretical value.

1. d4 b6 2. e4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. c4 f5 5. exf5 Bb4+ 6. Kf1 Nf6 7. Nf3 O-O 8. a3 Bd6 9. Nc3 Nc6 10. Nb5 Qe8 11. Nxd6 cxd6 12. fxe6 dxe6 13. Be3 e5 14. d5 e4 15. dxc6 Bxc6 16. Nd4 exd3 17. Nxc6 Qxc6 18. Qxd3 Rae8 19. h3 Kh8 20. Kg1 Ne4 21. Rf1 Rf5 22. Kh2 d5 23. cxd5 Rxd5 24. Qe2 Qd6+ 25. g3 Rf5 26. Rd1 Qf8 27. Rhf1 Qf7 28. Rc1 h6 29. Qc4 Qf8 30. Kg2 Kh7 31. Qc2 Kh8 32. Bd4 Qd6 33. Qc6 Qxd4 34.Qxe8+ Kh7 35. Rc2 Qd3 36. Qc6 Nxg3 37. Re1 Rg5 38. Rc3 Ne4+ 39. Kh2 Nxc3 40. Qxc3 Qd6+ 41. Kh1 Qd5+ 42. f3 Qf5 43. Kh2 Qf4+ 44. Kh1 Qg3 45. Qd3+ Rg6 46. Qf1 h5 47. Rd1 Rf6 48. Rd3 Re6 49. f4 Re1 50. Rxg3 Rxf1+ 51. Kg2 Rxf4 52. Rd3 a5 53. Rd5 Kh6 54. Kg3 Rf6 55. a4 g6 56. Rd4 Rc6 57. b4 Rc3+ 58. Kg2 Ra3 59. bxa5 bxa5 60. h4 Kg7 61. Rc4 Rb3 62. Rc5 Rb4 63. Rxa5 Rxh4 64. Ra8 Rb4 65. a5 Ra4 66. Ra6 Kh6 67. Ra8 Kg5 68. a6 Kg4 69. a7 Ra2+ 70. Kf1 g5 71. Kg1 h4 72. Kf1 h3 73. Kg1 Kg3 74. Rf8 Ra1+ 75. Rf1 h2+ 0-1

Mmmh, I cannot say I'm exactly proud of my play here. The game flipped about a few times, what I thought was fascinating was how much play he got for the exchange sacrifice he made with 33...Qxd4. After failing to finish it off on move 43, he just eventually won an ending that I should have managed to draw. However what I think it shows is that as a stronger player you are probably only mariginally worse and can outplay 2200 patzers like me in the ensuing mess. I guess I would not want to try it as black against a stronger player and perhaps that new analysis by Wind (which I have not seem) makes the case even clearer?.

Is anyone still daring to play this opening...what with Swine Flu and all?

I noticed there are some GMs who continue persist in this line for Black (I think there was a game in the recent US ch). I´ve investigated it myself, and this simple Nf3 business does indeed seem awkward for Black - the engines all give a massive advantage to White, but maybe there is more to it, after all that king is still on f1. It just seems like its too tricky to play for Black, but I agree it would be great to rehabilitate this line.

With summer effectively upon us (the May long weekend--last week--typically ushers in summer in Ontario), I'd like to propose a project (either this, or I'll get caught up with projects around the house...):

1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Bb7 4.Bd3 f5 5.exf5 Bb4+ if 5...Bxg2 is, indeed, debunked then this is an interesting alternative 6.Kf1 the f8-square has been made available for the Black king, thereby removing the dangers associated with ...Bxg2 6...Nf6 7.Nf3! 0-0 8.a3 Bd6 9.Nc3   

Statistics do not favor Black in this position; in fact, it looks almost lost.  But is there a way to rehabilitate Black's play after 5...Bb4+ ?  It would be terrific if we could make this playable for Black...

Owen's Defense belongs in Daring Defenses.

Odessky's book is an unusual work, very enthusiastic and then there are his self-ironic observations... buyers of his book on 1.b3 will know what I mean. There was a nice review of the latter available in the web. - Kaissiber 33 has 9 pages on the best treatment 4...f5 5.exf5 Bb4+! by Maurits Wind, plus 1 page on the Whole Hog 5...Bxg2?! by me. Not much for weeks of work, but I failed to rescue the line.

The "Whole Hog Variation" may be even worse than the Englund Gambit, but in both cases the strongest lines are difficult to find over the board. The latter could still be playable against a 2400+ White, in spite of my pessimistic article for Chesscafe. Because Ian Simpson from Norwich, UK, later found an improvement (8...Ba5 9. Rb5 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 Kd8 11. e4 a6!?, if you know what I mean). 

There are quieter alternatives for Black in move four, but the idea (1.c4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.e4 Bb7 4.Bd3) 4...f5 has a special charm. In Maurits Wind's analysis of 4...f5 5. exf5 Bb4+! Black gets good play for the sacrificed pawn. This is the treatment which I recommend for most purposes, perhaps with the exception of a corr. game. 

The "Whole Hog Variation" now looks worse than the Englund Gambit. However, for scoring a full point, White still has to get a few things right.   
For example: 1.c4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.e4 Bb7 4.Bd3 f5 5.exf5 Bxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.fxg6 Bg7 8.gxh7+ Kf8 9.Bg5 Nf6 10.Qh4 Nc6 11.Ne2 Bxh1 12.Nd2 b5!? (Basman) 13. cxb5 (the natural reply, though 13. Nf4 is also strong) 13. ... Nb4 14. Bg6, and now:

(a) 14. ... Bb7 15. Nf4 Nbd5 (better than 15. ... Ke7? 16. Nh5 Qf8 17. d5!! Nbxd5 18. Ne4 +- Flear - Plaskett, Torquay 1982) 16. Nh5 Ne7 17. Bxf6 Nxg6 18. Bxg7+ Kf7 19. Qxd8 Rhxd8 20. Rc1 Rac8 21. Bf6 Rf8 (21. ... Re8 22. Rc3) 22. Ke2 Nf4+ 23. Nxf4 Kxf6 24. Rg1 Rf7 (24. ... Rh8 25. Nh5+ Kf5 26. f4; 24. ... d6 25. Ke3 e5 26. dxe5 dxe5 27. Ne4+)

 
25. Ne4+!! Bxe4 (25. ... Kf5 26. Ke3 +-) 26. Rg8 Bxh7 27. Rxc8 +-, White should win (analysis from Kaissiber 33).

(b) 14. ... Ke7!? (not mentioned in Kais. 33) is interesting: 15. 0-0-0! Qb8 16. Rxh1 Qxb5 17. Ng3 Raf8 18. Re1 Nxa2+ 19. Kb1 Nc3+ 20. Kc2 Nd5 21. Nf5+ Kd8 22. Nxg7 Kc8


23. Nxe6! dxe6 24. Bh6 Qa4+ 25. Kb1 Rd8 26. Bg7 Nxh7 25. Bxh7 Qd7 28. Qh6 Rdg8 29. Bxg8 Rxh6 30. Bxh6 Kb8 31. Ne4 and White is clearly better: +/- (at least). 

Objectively, the Whole Hog Variation isn't correct. But who can find 20 strong moves in a row? So I am not entirely sure whether my analysis should deter anybody from playing the WHV. If you are an expert for "miracle swindles", this might be the weapon for you.  

Just mentioning for the sake of completeness: Here, out lines towards white advantage started with 9.Bg5. But 9.Ne2 does the same job. Both lead to the same variations (it's always the same position after move 11).

9. Ne2 Bxh1 (9... Nf6 10. Qh4 Bxh1 11. Bg5 {is the very same.}) 10.
Bg5 Nf6 11. Qh4 ±/+-

For instance, a game by Shirov or Browne-Miles, 1-0, 1978 took this course.