I have some apologies to give as well- I should've provided a link for that correspondence game:
www.iccf-webchess.com/GetPGN.aspx?id=93060

The game in full:
White: Israel De la Calle (2302)
Black: Prof. Mario Valverde Lopez (2059)
60yearsBdF-WS25, ICCF, 15/11/2006
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 a6 12.Rb3 Qxa2 13.Be2 Qa1+ 14.Bd1 Qa5 15.Qxa5 Nxa5 16.Ng5 Nh6 17.Rh3 Rf8 18.Nxh7 Rg8 19.g4 d6 20.exd6 cxd6 21.Rh5 Nc4 22.Nhf6 Rf8 23.Be2 b5 24.Bxc4 1-0

After 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.e4 Nge7, I have looked at three alternatives against 10.Bc4, and think 10...Qa4 may be better:
A) 10...0-0 11.0-0 +/- (11...Ng6 12.Rb3! +-)
B) 10...Qc5 11.Bb3 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 Na5 14.Ng5 +/- is similar to the main line with 10...Bxd2+,
C) 10...Qa4 can lead to a long, forcing line with 11.Bd3 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 Qxa2 14.c4 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 Na5 16.c5 b6 17.d6 cxd6 18.exd6 0-0 +=, when White can regain the lost pawn but I don't think the pawn on d6 offers many winning chances.  Or 11.Bxa5 Qxa5 12.Qd2 (12.Nxd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 Nxe5 14.Qe2 Kd8 with ...Re8 to follow, is pretty unclear) 12...Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Kd8 +=.

On the other hand I think 10.Rb5 should lead to +/-.  I agree that after 10...Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2, 11...0-0!? 12.Nxc7 Rb8 may be a better practical try, in view of 11...Nxd5 12.exd5 Nd8 (12...Ne7 13.d6 cxd6 14.cxd6 Ng6 15.Bc4, 13...Nc6 14.dxc7 a6 15.Rb6) 13.Bc4.  It's worth mentioning that 12...Qxa2 almost works for Black here, but after the accurate 13.dxc6 dxc6 14.Rb3! (otherwise Black gets a perpetual), Black's two pawns should not be enough for the piece.  Indeed I am tempted to suggest that 9.e4 is superior to 9.Rb5 here. 

Regarding 8...Bxd2+, objectively it may be no worse, but I'm not sure that White has more chances to go wrong there, judging by the article- at the very least there are numerous ways to get into an ending where Black is suffering and begging for a draw.

Interesting about the lack of 4.Bf4's at high levels.  It would also be interesting to see the proportion of 4.Bf4 games that continue with the horrible blunder 6.Bc3, as those might be inflating the percentages at lower levels.  In my various games with the gambit (mostly casual/blitz but also with one tournament win over a 1700-rated player) White played 4.Bf4 only about a dozen times, and on all but one of the occasions, followed it up with 6.Bc3.  The one game that continued 6.Nc3 went 6...Bb4 7.Nd5?! Bxd2+ 8.Kxd2 Kd8, when I suspect Black is already at least equal.

On the subject of alternatives for White in the main line Englund Gambit (e.g. LDZ's 10.Rxc3), what happens after 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.e4!?.  My analysis, with the assistance of Fritz, suggested 9...Nge7 10.Rb5 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Nxd5 12.exd5 Nd8 (I looked at 12...Ne7, White gets a dangerous kingside assault).  I don't think this is a refutation but nor do I particularly like this for Black either.  White has a lead in development and has sorted out the pawn structure.

Therefore I checked out 9...a6, but I remember one line that ran Rb3, ...Qxa2, Qc1, which was close to being a refutation.

8.Qd2! and now:

A) 8...0-0 9.Qg5! Nce7 (or 9...Qxg5 10.Nxg5 Ngxe5 11.Nxc7 Rb8 12.0-0-0 +/-) 10.Nxe7+ Qxe7 (10...Nxe7 11.0-0-0 is great for White) 11.Qxe7 Nxe7 and Black has scant compensation for the pawn.

B) 8...h6 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Qc3 Re8 11.e4 and White's attack will be faster.

White: NM Peter Radomskyj (2202)
Black: Zilbermints (2085)
Westfield Chess Club G/40 Tournament
Westfield, New Jersey
27 February 2000

1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 The Zilbermints Gambit 4 Nc3 [Provocative remark redacted by Markovich.]

4...Ng6 5 Bg5 Be7 6 Bxe7 Qxe7 7 Nd5 Qd8 8 e4 00 9 Be2 Nce5        10 Nxe5 Nxe5  11 f4 Nc6

11...Ng6 is a mistake, for White plays 12 f5! followed by 13 f6!

12 00 d6 13 Bf3 Be6  14 Qd2 

Better was 14 c4!  14...Bd5 15 Qd5 Rab8  16 Rad1 Qf6! Now Black has the advantage.  17 g3 Qxb2  18 Qb3 Qb3 19 axb3 f5  20 ef5 Rf5 21 Be4 Rc5  22 c4 Nb4  23 f5 Re5  24 Rf4 Kf7 25 g4 h6 26 h4 Rbe8

At this point I decided to return the pawn, as Peter was threatening to get all sorts of tricks against my King. Better safe than sorry.

27 Bb7 Re1  28 Rxe1 Rxe1  29 Kf2?? A horrible blunder. After 29 Kg2 it is still pretty much an equal game.  Afterwards,  analyses showed the game to be pretty much drawish.

29...Nd3+  30 Kf3 Nxf4  31 Kxf4 Bd5+  32 Bd5+  Kf8  33 c5 Rd1 34 Bf3 Rd3 35 cd cd 36 Resigns.  

Peter used to say the Zilbermints Gambit was "unsound". Now he has paid the price: he was defeated by the very opening he called unsound.

Lev, 

Showing 4 games where White blunders away winning advantages doesn't prove any type of theoretical viability. 

In the first game, White plays the stupid 5. Nd5 instead of the natural and very strong 5. Bf4. 

In the second game, White reaches a promising ending, but from ~move 20 to move 27, proceeds to play like crap and bungle a great position. 

In the third game, Black is dead lost until 31. c6? which might let Black draw, then he gets back to probably winning, and then completely blows it with 34. Nd5, when it's a draw. Instead 31. Bb7 leaves Black where he should be - lost. 

In the last game, White played the opening well, but then moves 12-15 pretty much give it all away. 

I'm not impressed. I'm still waiting for you to address the concrete variations which were put forth by various members of this forum, in this thread. Show us the way Lev! Part the White and Black seas and defeat all the unspoken laws of chess that say you can't give up a pawn for nothing and win!

Stefan,

See, you just made my point! Correspondence, not OTB, play, is something else altogether. That said, I disagree with your assessment of 4 Nc3 against 3...Nge7. Some games:

[Event "DESC SE023 email"]
[Site "DESC email"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Drescher,Thomas"]
[Black "Lagemann,Tobias"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 h6 5.Nd5 Ng6 6.Bf4 d6 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e4 Be6 10.Qd2 f5 11.exf5 Bxd5 12.fxg6 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 Qxg6 14.Qd3 Qf7 15.b3 Qf6 16.Kb1 Nb4  17.Qd4 Be4 0-1

[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Boesveld,Marco"]
[Black "De Zeeuw,Maarten"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 Ng6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.Qd2 h6  9.Nd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 c6 11.Nc3 Qb6 12.0-0-0 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 Nxe5 14.e4 Ke7 15.f4 Ng6 16.g3 d6 17.Be2 Bh3 18.Rhd1 Rad8 19.Bf3 h5 20.Ra4 a6 21.Rad4 h4 22.a4 Bc8 23.a5 hxg3 24.hxg3 Rh3 25.Ne2 Nh4 26.gxh4 Rxf3 27.e5 d5 28.Rg1 g6 29.Rg3 Rf2 30.Kd2 Rh8 31.Ke3 Rh2 32.c4 dxc4 33.Rxc4 R8xh4 34.Rb4 Rh1 35.Nc3 R4h2 36.Kd4 Ra1 37.Kc5 Rxa5+ 38.Kb6 Ra1 39.Kc7 Rh8 40.Ne4 b5 41.Rd3 Bf5 42.Rd6 Rc8+ 43.Kb7 c5 44.Rb3 c4 45.Re3 b4 46.Nf6 c3 47.bxc3 b3 48.Rb6 Be6 49.c4 Rxc4 50.f5 Bxf5 51.Nd5+ Kf8 52.Rexb3 Be4 53.Rd6 Rc5 54.Rd8+ Kg7 55.Rh3 Rxd5 0-1

[Event "BRA TCS-A corr"]
[Site "Brazil CXEB"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Rain,Ricardo Ernesto"]
[Black "Costa,Antonio Pedro Ramos"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 Ng6 5.Qd5 Be7 6.a3 b6 7.h4 Bb7 8.h5 Nf8 9.h6 g6 10.Be3 Ne6 11.0-0-0 d6 12.exd6 cxd6 13.Ne4 Na5 14.Nxd6+ Bxd6 15.Qxd6 Qxd6 16.Rxd6 Nc4 17.Rd3 Nxe3 18.Rxe3 0-0 19.g3 Rae8 20.Bg2 Nc5 21.Rxe8 Rxe8 22.b4 Ne4 23.Nd4 Nxf2 24.Bxb7 Nxh1 25.Bxh1 Re3 26.Bf3 Rxa3 27.Kb2 Re3 28.c4 f5 29.c5 bxc5 30.bxc5 Kf7 31.c6 Ke7 32.Nc2 Re5 33.Nb4 Kd6 34.Nd5 Kxc6 35.Nf6+ Kd6 36.Nxh7 Re8 37.Ng5 Ke7 38.e4 Kf6 39.Nh7+ Ke5 40.exf5 gxf5 41.Ng5 Kf6 42.Nh3 Kg6 43.g4  1/2

[Date "2002.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Schueller,Rudolf"]
[Black "Fakler,Udo"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 Ng6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Ncxe7 7.e3 Nc6 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nb5 Kd8 10.0-0-0 Ncxe5 11.Nbd4 d6 12.h3 Rb8 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.g3 b6 15.Qxe5 dxe5 16.Nc6+ Ke8 17.Nxe7 Kxe7 18.Bc4 Be6 19.Bxe6 Kxe6 20.Rd2 Rhd8 21.Rhd1 Rxd2 22.Rxd2 e4 23.Kd1 c5 24.Ke2 Rb7 25.f3 f5 26.fxe4  1/2

I will post more games once I check my files.

If I may just for a moment take the view from 30,000 feet, you have to wonder why anyone would suppose that 1.d4 e5? would have the slightest chance of producing a playable game for Black.  Why would anyone submit to the Queen's Gambit, or bother to play the King's Indian, if that were true?  Chess would not be chess if this move were any good.  

I can understand why analysts would toy with this gambit just to exercise their intellects, but why anyone with all his marbles would maintain that Black could play this way and get away with it, I cannot imagine.  It's akin to trying to prove the 1.e4, 2.Bc4, 3.Qf3 leads to a big advantage for White in all variations.  Chess would be a trivial game if that were true or if 1.d4 e5? worked; also a game not worth playing.

So what explains this quest, this attempt to make chess a much simpler game than it is?  Coming from any given chess player, is this an unconscious expression of self-contempt?  Or is it a desperate determination to justify one's not to learning the deeply complex game that is chess?

Here's another one:
Franzoso-Parisi (Cr. C.I. 769)
1. d4 e5 2.dxe Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.e6 d6 13.exf6 a6 14.Rb3 Qxa2 15.Nc3 Qa5 16.e4 Qc5 17.Rxb7 Nb4 18.Nd5 Nxc2+ 19.Kd1 Ng4 20.Rb3 Nxf2+ 21.Ke2 Nxh1 22.Rc3 Qf2+ 23.Kd1 Nd4 24.Qd3 Bg4+ 25.Nf3 Rb8 26.Rxc7 Rb1+ 27.Rc1 Nxf3 28.Rxb1 Ne5+ 29.Be2 Nxd3 30.Bxg4 Qe1+ 31.Kc2 Qxb1+ 32.Kxb1 Ne5 0-1

This can be found at http://web.mclink.it/MC5757/teoria/unorthodox_4.htm

But both sides play sub-optimally (12.Ne4, 12...fxe6 for instance).  I think 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 a6 is an improvement over the old 11...h6, but the position is still pretty difficult for Black with the king in the centre.   One correspondence game (which looks like both players used Fritz rather heavily) continued with 12.Rb3 Qxa2 13.Be2 Qa1+ 14.Bd1 Qa5 15.Qxa5 Nxa5 16.Ng5 Nh6 17.Rh3 Rf8 18.Nxh7 Rg8 19.g4 and White was better, though both sides may have improvements.

Wow, this junk is still being discussed here ?! Some things never change. Good to see the old names still at it. Kudos.

Really, SWJ? How come then that after 10 Rxc3! White has scored 3/3 games? I recently played an Englund Gambit specialist. He is the editor of Atlantic Chess News, my state's chess magazine. I defeated
him in the same line, with 10 Rxc3!

After 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5 Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Rb1 Qa3 8 Rb3 Qa5 9 a3 Bxc3 10 Rxc3! what is the best move for Black here?

Zilbermints-Ferrero, Branchburg 2009, went 11 Bf4!? Qxd1 12 Kxd1 Nge7 13 e4 += 1-0/53.

Personally, I like 11 e4! as in Zielinski-Pokojski, Polish U18 champ, 2002. 

I will post other responses later.

I would be happy to defend the 10.Rxc3 line of the Englund Gambit as Black.  At worst White just gets a small edge in a murky position IMHO, similar to after 10.Bxc3.  More critical is 8.Nd5.

I cannot believe that Black gets an edge after 3...Nge7 4.Bf4 Ng6 5.Bg3 Qe7 6.Nc3 Qb4, I'm afraid.  Most critical is probably 7.a3 Qxb2 8.Nd5 Kd8 (this is already looking similar to the critical 8.Nd5 lines following 3...Qe7) and White can plunge into the complications after 9.e6, or probably have a decent edge after 9.e3- although I don't think Black is without chances in either case.

It's worth noting that I initially preferred the continuation 7.Rb1 Qa5 8.Qd5 Bb4 9.Qxa5 Bxa5 but a discussion on another thread with Stefan Bucker, in which the analysis was taken a lot further, suggested that Black may end up with decent structural compensation for the pawn, regardless of Fritz's insistence on the contrary. 

However I think 4.Nc3 is the way for White to go.

I have been away for several days due to medical reasons. Having checked out of the hospital, I would like to give a few games concerning the Englund Gambit:


[Event "Second Annual Eastern Intercol"]
[Site "Philadelphia PA USA"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[White "Zilbermints, Lev"]
[Black "Mucerino, Joseph"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2075"]
[BlackElo "1876"]
[ECO "A40"]
[Round "?"]

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Rb1 Qa3 8. Rb3 Qa5 9. a3 Bxc3 10. Rxc3 Qd5 11. Bf4 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1 Nge7 13. e3 Nd5 14. Rd3 Nxf4  15. exf4 b6 16. Rc3 Bb7 17. Bd3 h6 18. Be4 O-O-O 19. Kc1 Ne7 20. Bxb7+ Kxb7 21. Rd1 Rhe8 
22. g4 Rh8 23. Rcd3 Kc8 24. Re3 h5 25. h3 hxg4 26. hxg4 a6 27. Ng5 Rhf8 28. f5 f6  29. exf6 gxf6 30. Ne4 Nc6 31. f4 Rf7 32. Rh3 Rg8 33. Rh4 Rgg7 34. c3 Na5 35. Rg1 Nc4  36. Rg3 Nxa3 37. Rh6 Nc4 38. Rxf6 Re7 39. Rf8+ Kb7 40. f6 Rh7 41. fxe7 Rxe7 42. g5 Rxe4 
43. g6 Re1+ 44. Kc2 d5 45. g7 Re2+ 46. Kd1 1-0

[Event "POL-ch U18"]
[Site "Bartkowa"]
[Date "2002.01.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Zielinski,Przemyslaw"]
[Black "Pokojski,Patryk"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Rb3 Qa5 9.a3 Bxc3 10.Rxc3 Qd5 11.e4 Qxe4+ 12.Be2 Nge7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Bd3 Qd5 15.Bc4 Qe4 16.Re1 Qg4  17.h3 Qh5 18.g4 Qxh3 19.Ng5 Qh6 20.Rh3 Qg6 21.Bd3 f5 22.exf6 Qxf6 23.Bxh7+ Kh8 24.Bd3+ Kg8 25.Rf3 Nf5 26.Rxf5 Qd6 27.Rxf8+  1-0


These two games should illustrate the value of 10 Rxc3! over the regular 10 Bxc3. My point is that the c7-square is pressured and the Nc6 cannot move for quite awhile. That is first.

Second, with regard to the Zilbermints Gambit, Black has an edge there in the 4 Bf4 line. This is because after 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 Ng6 the most common move is 5 Bg3, removing the Bishop from danger. I almost never see 5 e3 or 5 g3. Now, after
5 Bg3 Qe7 6 Nc3 Qb4! the difference is obvious: White's Bg3 cannot return to the Queenside.

While I do not play the Charlick-Hartlaub Gambit often, I should point out that after 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 d6 3 Nf3 Bg4 4 Bg5 Qd7 is OK for Black.
Below is a game between two masters. Black could have drawn, but blundered in the endgame.

[Event "HUN-chT 0304"]
[Site "Hungary"]
[Date "2003.09.28"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Restas,Peter"]
[Black "Dombai,Istvan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Bg5 Qd7 5.Nbd2 h6 6.Bf4 Nc6 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e3 0-0-0 10.Be2 Nf6 11.0-0 Qb4 12.c3 Qxb2 13.Nd4 Bxe2 14.Qxe2 Qxc3 15.Nxc6 Rxd2 16.Nxa7+ Kb8 
17.Nb5 Qb4 18.Qe1 Rb2 19.Qxb4 Rxb4 20.Nd4 g6 21.Rab1 Rxb1 22.Rxb1 Kc8 23.f3 Nd5 24.e4 Nb6  25.Kf2 Rd8 26.Ke3 Nc4+ 27.Kd3 Ne5+ 28.Kc3 c5 29.Nb3 b6 30.a4 Rd3+ 31.Kc2 Re3 32.Nc1 Nc4 
33.Rb3 Rxb3 34.Nxb3 Kc7 35.g4 Kc6 36.h4 Ne5 37.Nd2 b5 38.axb5+ Kxb5 39.g5 hxg5 40.hxg5 Kb4  41.f4 Nc4 42.e5 Nxd2?? 

Best is 42...Ne3+ followed by 43...Nf5 

43.Kxd2 Kc4 44.f5 Kd5 45.e6  1-0

TicklyTim wrote on 07/07/09 at 13:14:01:


I think I've told the story of how I once saw (U.S.) N.M. Chuck Deibert, then rated 2320 or so, whip out the Englund against a 1950-rated player and get summarily flattened.  A lot of people thought that it served him right.

TicklyTim wrote on 07/07/09 at 12:42:13:


Are you referring to IM Michael Basman?

I've deleted two posts about computers and chess, which is a discussion that belongs in "General Chess."

It's fine to discuss the merits of a computer's evaluation of a given position of relevance to a thread; it's not fine to launch into how evil or how useful chess engines in general supposedly are. 

I don't like taking such a heavy-handed approach, but there's been a lot of provocation going on in this thread.

According to Fritz 6, my beloved chess computer, White is clearly better after 5.e4 Ng6 6.Qd5 Qe7 7.Nb5. Now I will be able to play the Zilbermints Gambit like a computer.

For what it's worth, Fritz 6 claims '0.62' after 3...Qe7.

Would those wishing to issue match challenges please do so by private correspondence?  These are essentially off-topic and they amount to chest-puffing.

Also, could we please keep the mockery to a minimum?  I am happy to see so much actual chess analysis here; unhappy to see so much mockery of the proponent of the many Zilbermints gambits (which I admit I have engaged in myself from time to time).

After 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Ne7 perhaps just 3.Nf3 followed by 4.Nc3.  I doubt Black has better than to go into the main line.

2...Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 h6 5.Bf4 g5 6.Bg3 Bg7 7.e3 g4 8.Nd4 Nxe5 9.Bxe5 Bxe5 10.Qxg4 appears to leave White a pawn up for nothing.   Therefore I agree that 7...Nf5 8.Qd5 is critical.  Taking the analysis further, I'm not convinced by 8...d6 9.Bb5 0-0 10.Bxc6 Be6 11.Qb5 bxc6 12.Qxc6 Nxg3 13.hxg3 dxe5.  White should have an edge in this position due to the extra pawn, but Black has plenty of open lines and freer piece play as well as the bishop pair.  An assessment of "+=" seems fair IMHO. 

Therefore White should have a closer look at 9.0-0-0.  After 9...Nxg3 10.hxg3 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Bxe5 12.f4 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 Qf6 14.Bb5+, 14...Ke7 looks a slight improvement, 15.fxg5 Qxc3 ~/+=.  So I prefer 12.Qe4, preventing the exchange on c3.  Now the f-pawn push is a real threat.  12...f5 (12...g4 13.f4 gxf3 14.gxf3 with the awkward threat of 15.f4) 13.Qb4 and White has a nice advantage in view of the weakened black kingside and better development.

It is probably easier, though, just to fall back upon 8.Bc4 or 8.Qd3, guaranteeing a tidy and safe advantage.  For instance 8.Qd3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.0-0-0 and White is better due to the lead in development.   In either case, in my opinion, White's advantage lies somewhere between += and +/-.

TicklyTim? A. Patzer - B.Ginner? What are you talking about?

[Insulting characterization redacted by Markovich.]

The Wigglesworth Defense is (after 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7) is 4 Bg5. 

Now after 4...h6 5 Bh4 g5 6 Bg3 Bg7 

Alternative: 6...Nf5, the Stadelman Attack, named for Samuel Leigh Stadelman who first analyzed it.

                         6...Ng6 with a later ...Bg7

7 Nc3 transposes to the line you give after 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Nc3 h6

As for the line 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Ne7 is not a good idea. White might play 3 f4 protecting the e4-pawn. This is why 2...Nc6 is better, seeing how it develops the Nb8 with tempo.

B.Ginner actually suggested this in his notes to the game, and suggested the crazy gambit line 4.b4 axb4 5.c3!? with some compensation. As for the name, you've got it. 

A very good question TN. I had to refer to my copy of "Die schachen-turd" (of which I own the only copy), which suggests 3.g4 Nbc6 4.b4!, the Evans sub-gambit-counterattack variation-system. In A. Patzer (1437) - B.Ginner (1522), black chose to sacrifice another pawn with 4...d6 5. exd6 Ng6!?, but did not obtain sufficient compensation after 6.h4.

For those who don't know this (i.e. everyone bar about 10 people in the world), this runs 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7.

Here we have the starting position of the Zilbermints Gambit (which, at least to my mind, falls as a sub-variation of the whole Englund Gambit complex, although I appreciate others reserve that moniker for Englund's 3...Qe7 only). The Wigglesworth is reached after 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Bg7.

Now, personally, I think that 4.Bg5 is giving black exactly what he wants, and after 7.e3 g4 8.Nd4 Nxe5 9.Bxe5 Bxe5, black is at least equal (9.Qxg4? c5! is clearly better for black). I much prefer Tony's original idea of 4.Nc3.

Now, firstly I have to point out an error by Lev, who states that Bucker recommends 4...h6, "which might transpose to the Wigglesworth after 5.Bf4 g5 6.Bg3 Bg7". Now, exactly how is this a transposition when white has the additional move Nc3? That has to change the assessment of the line completely I'm afraid - white has a strong developing move, removes the possible threat against b2 in some lines, and is a move closer to queenside castling.

So, as TonyRo suggests, te analogous 7.e3 here changes the assessment completely, from = to +/-. 

a) 7...g4 8.Nd4 Nxe5 9.Bxe5 Bxe5 10.Qxg4 +/- - White has the better pawn structure, no lack of development, good prospects for his last piece, and the ability to castle queenside. Black has isolated f- and h-pawns, will need to play another pawn move before he can develop his QB, and that means at least another three moves before he can look to castle Q-side (if he wishes to). 
b) 7...Nf5 8.Qd5!? looks strong to me - 8...Qe7 9.Qc4! prevents any Qb4 ideas, and also prevents sequences like 9...Nxg3 10.hxg3 Nxe5 due to 11.Qxc7 +/-. So, black may have to resort to something like 8...d6 instead, which just looks unnatural with the black bishop on g7 instead. 9.Bb5 looks a try here (though 9.O-O-O Nxg3 10.hxg3 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Bxe5 12.f4! is an interesting try, claiming that white is so far ahead in development as to render the capture on c3 insignificant - 12...Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qf6 14.Bb5+! Kf8 15.fxg5! +/-), when 9....O-O 10.Bxc6 Be6 11.Qb5 bxc6 12.Qxc6 when black has pretty much nothing for his material, the bishop pair has little to bite on and I can't believe it's worth a pawn. If I'm wrong, however, then white has TonyRo's good alternatives in 8.Bc4 and 8.Qd3, both of which look better for white also. 8.Qd3 prevents the 8...d6 idea, but does allow black to acheive material equality with 8...Nxg3 9.hxg3 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.f4 Bg7 12.O-O-O - I personally think white is quite a bit better here, but this might be playable for black. 8.Bc4 prevents this recapturing idea (due to Bxf7+ motifs), but allows 8...g4 9.Nd4 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Nxe5, which is probably playable for black after lines such as 11.Bb3 d6 +/= - I've played these sorts of positions as black and I'm quite happy with them, so this wouldn't scare me at all. So, in my view at the moment, 8.Qd5 is the most testing move after 8...Nf5.