Thank you very much, gewgaw! So your nominated 10...d6 is meant to improve upon move 10 in the following game. It is in the PGN file, but I repeat some key games here - not everybody loves to use playing software.

Eduardo Saglione (2404) - Fabricio Iván Magallanes (2168)
Argentinian Corr. Championship (final) 2007
Comments: Stefan Bücker

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nbd2! Bxd2+
By taking at first on d2, instead of the main move 7...Nxe4, Black seems to reduce his own options. But White's alternatives are also reduced, for example he can't take back on d2 with the knight. In most cases the text move will soon transpose to analyses in the gamefile POMTOW ATTACK 7...Nxe4 8. d5!. 
8.Bxd2
8.Qxd2? [1–0, 23] Ivekovic,J-Racki,B, Busevec 2005 8...Nxe4 -/+; 8.Nxd2?! d5 (8...Nxd4? [1–0, 50] Crawford,B-Cornell,J, Detroit 1999 9.e5!) 9.exd5 Qe7+ 10.Kf1 Nxd4 is rather good for Black. 
8...Nxe4
8...d5? 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 +/-.
9.d5
9.Qe2? [1–0, 39] Herrmann,J-Muehle,S, Neumuenster 1999 9...d5 -/+; 9.0–0? d5 10.Bd3 0–0 11.Be3? Bg4 -/+, Black has not only an extra pawn, but stands also much better, [0–1, 27] San Emeterio Cabanes,J-Laniella,I, Onati 1994. 
9...Ne7 10.Bb4 
10.0–0 Nxd2 11.Qxd2 0–0 [0–1, 23] Lahr,T-Dornhard,O, Pfeddersheim 1998, invites the advance 12.d6, so maybe 11...d6 is more precise, with a transposition to 7...Nxe4 8.d5 Ne7 9.0–0 Bxd2 10.Bxd2 Nxd2 11.Qxd2 d6, discussed in the file as our main line. 
10...0–0 
Here gewgaw nominates 10...d6 as an equalizer line. It should be noted, however, that his further analysis 11.0-0 0-0 12.Re1 returns to the Argentinian game by a transposition of moves. This means that gewgaw's 12...a5 is the real novelty. (Maybe his move-order is more precise, but to me it seems that this question is a side-issue here.)
In the analysis I had mentioned another alternative:
10...c5 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.0–0 += 0–0 (12...d5 13.Bd3) 13.Ne5 d6 14.Qe1 Bf5 15.Rd1. 
11.0–0 d6
This position also arises in the main line file POMTOW ATTACK 7...Nxe4 8.d5! in the side-line 9...Bxd2 10.Bxd2 Nxd2 11. Qxd2. There are several alternatives, but this side-line seems nevertheless relevant for the Pomtow Attack - White gets compensation mainly because he has more space and active pieces. This game is a nice illustration for the lasting pressure which White exerts thanks to the great activity of his pieces. 
12.Re1 Nc5 
As mentioned above, 12...a5!? is gewgaw's novelty. 
13.Qd2
13.h3 gave White sufficient compensation in the other file POMTOW ATTACK 7...Nxe4 8.d5!, after the further moves 13...b6 14.Bc3 a5 15.Qd2 Bd7 16.b3 Ng6 17.Bb2 Re8 18.Rxe8+ Bxe8 19.Re1, with compensation. 
13...b6 14.Bc3 Bd7 15.Nd4


An ideal position for a knight. From here it "controls" eight legal moves of black minor pieces... 
15...a5 16.g3
The first of three quiet, but powerful pawn moves which systematically restrict the opponent's options. 
16...Re8 17.h4! Qc8 18.h5!
Only a few moves later this pawn will even advance to h6. 
18...Nf5 19.Nxf5 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Bxf5 21.h6! Qd7 22.Qf4 Bg6 23.Bxg7 Qf5 24.Qd4 


24...Qg5 25.Re3 Bh5 26.Bb5 f5 27.f4 Qg6 28.Kg2 Qf7 29.Re6! c6 30.Bxc6 Rc8 31.Re3 Bg4 32.b3 Rb8 33.Bb5 Ne4 34.Qc4 Qe7 35.Bc3 Kf7 36.Qd4 Rg8 37.Bd3 Kf8 38.Bxe4 fxe4 39.Rxe4 Qd8 40.f5 Qg5 41.Rxg4 Qxg4 42.Qf6+ 1–0

Second Kaissiber Competition: The Pomtow Attack (Italian Game)

Post a new idea, which improves upon the existing theory of the following variation, in this thread up till August 12th, 2009.
The best theoretical novelty wins a full set of Kaissiber (issues 1-34). Further prizes: three subscriptions for Kaissiber issues 34-37. 

The topic of the competition is: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nbd2:



About the topic:
The old position after 6…Bb4+ is still extremely popular, with about 6000 games in the database. It goes back to the days of Greco (17th century). His 7.Nc3 often led to spectacular games. Steinitz tried to improve the concept, in 1898 a Danish theoretician became famous (in the chess world) by developing his Möller Attack, 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5!?. Today it is still a famous example for romantic opening play, but only very few people claim that White might have an advantage, most books assess the position as roughly equal or even as =+. The alternatives 7.Bd2 and the rare Krakov Variation 7.Kf1 may be slightly better, but both are assessed only as = in recent opening works. – A fourth move is 7.Nbd2, the topic of our second theoretical competition. It is even rarer than the Krakov Variation 7.Kf1, but in my (= Stefan Bücker’s) opinion the move is underestimated. The stem game Dr. Pomtow – Schallopp won’t convince anybody, but the most interesting development since 1862, when Dr. Pomtow played the move 7.Nbd2, are two games played by the 31 year old Russian GM Dmitry Chuprov (Elo 2577) against strong opposition. We can perhaps agree that a GM usually doesn’t blunder a pawn in move 7, or at least he wouldn’t repeat such a blunder in a second game. So we can assume that Chuprov didn’t fear the reply 7…Nxe4. But does he see an advantage for White? Try to find it out by yourself. 

Rules:
Forum members are invited to post (= nominate) their proposal (only one per member) in this thread of the competition, up till August 12th, 2009. To make it clear that a concrete move (or perhaps a plan) is nominated, please highlight the word "nomination” in your post. It should be an idea that improves either White’s or Black’s chances over the existing theory, as presented in the pgn file of the competition. It is possible to withdraw a nomination and then nominate something else. It may be an unknown or underestimated game (not necessarily played by the member himself), or a new idea, accompanied by short analysis. To make it easier to study the Pomtow Attack, there is a pgn file available for download that contains relevant games and additional analyses (by Stefan Bücker). If you detect other printed material regarding 7.Nbd2, please publish it in the thread of the competition. There will be an additional prize for the “best research”, consisting of 10 additional issues of Kaissiber (this prize may be split, if more than one member have relevant information). 

 

The Two Threads:

The (main) thread of the competition is for nominations and valuable information on the topic. But in the first competition this thread became very “dense”, and to see all the nominated ideas, one had to read a lot of other comments. Therefore this time we will have a second thread (to keep the overview in the main thread) for anything else related to the competition: chat, refutations (while forced refutations may well belong into the main thread, too), proposals for the next competition, etc. If nominated analysis seems flawed, other members should comment, thus making it improbable that an incorrect idea could finally triumph. In the first days of the competition, I intend to participate in the dialog (especially if there are claims that White’s concept can be easily refuted), but later the discussion about the variations and nominated ideas will be left to the other members. It would be great if a lively discussion could arise. Other comments are also welcome, as in any other thread, and nobody will mind if you want to reveal a rescue for the Möller Attack. But that should appear in the second thread, not in the first. 

 

The most interesting ideas will be pre-selected (by Stefan Bücker), the winners will then be crowned through a poll, held from August 13th to 24th. The members will be asked to vote in this poll and decide which of the ideas has the highest practical value – one member, one vote.