Yes I have the games from the Big Database. 

The games I have with 6.e4 :
Harnett-Muller (1980)
Myers-Alvarez (1988)
Preston-Lins
Preston-Glayton
McEwan-MacKenzie
Thau-Braack
Lembeye-Galliot
Preston-Westra
Preston-Cumbers (Thx Paul!)
Glazyrin-Gataullin (2004)

In Kaissiber 5 on p.23, Gerard Welling mentions a game that was played way back in 1971: Staples-Hempson (I only have the moves 6.e4 Qh4 7.Kg2). Does anyone have this or any other “missing” games featuring 6.e4 ? Please post!

Hey HTH, any notable games or lines in the references you mentioned?

Regards, Paul

Thanks for all the responses.

Regarding 6...Qh4: it's hardly ever played. Most players fear Bc8 and go for the forcing 6...gxh2+.

I had the following in an online blitz game:
1.Nh3 d5 2.g3 e5 3.f4 Bxh3 4.Bxh3 exf4 5.O-O fxg3 
6.e4 Qh4 7. Kg2 (7.Qf3) Qxe4+ 8.Rf3 gxh2 9.Nc3 Qh4 10.Qe2+ Be7 11.Qb5+
With some play

regards, Paul

Bukowski wrote on 09/25/09 at 21:06:53:

The one and only time I faced this was ten years ago:

W. Preston v Paul Cumbers (Doncaster, 2000)
1.Nh3 d5 2.g3 e5 3.f4 Bxh3 4.Bxh3 exf4 5.O-O fxg3 6.e4 Qh4 7.Qg4 gxh2+ 8.Kh1 Qxg4 9.Bxg4 Nf6 10.Bc8 Nbd7 11.Bxb7 Rb8 12.Bc6 dxe4 13.d4 Bd6 14.b3 O-O 15.c4 Nh5 16.Kg2 Ng3 17.Re1 Nc5 18.dxc5 Be5 19.Na3 h1=Q+ 20.Rxh1 Nxh1 21.Rb1 Ng3 22.Be3 f5 23.Nc2 Ne2 24.Bg5 h6 25.Bd5+ Kh7 26.Rh1 Kg6 27.Be3 Rbd8 28.Nb4 Nc3 29.Nc6 Nxd5 30.Nxe5+ Kf6 31.Bd4 Nf4+ 32.Kg3 Ne2+ 33.Kh4 g5+ 34.Kh3 Nxd4 35.Ng4+ fxg4+ 36.Kxg4 Kg6 37.Rb1 Rf3 38.Rh1 Rdf8 0-1

My opponent was a weak player, who for some reason likes to play in the Open section of weekend tournaments (the Minor would be more appropriate). Occasionally he finishes on a score higher than zero. I was tipped before the game that he played this stuff, so I had a few minutes to check up on some theory at the bookstall . During the game, I remember feeling amused that I had doubled h-pawns with my f- and g-pawns still intact! I can only conclude that the purpose of White's opening is to try and confuse the opponent. In another round of the same tournament, Preston played something similar against a friend of mine, this time shuffling both knights around provocatively on the back ranks - again it seemed to be a psychological ploy...

@Smyslov_Fan: Reread my post. Welling hasn't claimed that 6...Qh4 is the only refutation, but you don't care. You can insult an opening, if you want, or Tartakower (his name "Compromised Amar Gambit" for 6.e4 should deter everybody to take it serious), but to claim... 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/13/10 at 21:45:11:

...and then give an analysis of 6.e4? is ridiculous. 

TN wrote on 02/14/10 at 02:35:02:

There are better openings than 1.Nh3 d5 2. g3 e5 3.f4 (Amar Gambit). But mindlessly pushing the h-pawn is hardly the solution. White plays 7.d4, e.g. 7...Nc6 8.Qd3 Be7 9.Nc3 Bf6 10.Be3, and I am not sure who is better. If you want to refute the opening, don't forget to analyze 5.d4, instead of 5.0-0, and moving the c-pawn also comes into consideration. 

Fritz gives at least 5 lines.  Anyone with a computer can find them, but here's a synopsis:

6...gh2 7.Kh2 de4 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qe2   
Fritz' score: -1.61

6..de4 7.hg3 Nf6 (or 7...Bc5 8.Kg2 Nf6) 
Fritz:  -1.62

6...Qh4 (already mentioned) 
-1.61

And there are others.

I really think the onus is on White to show that there is some concrete reason to play this rather than Black.

After your strong words, would you please give a concrete analysis. Gerard Welling's article gave a selection of interesting games with 1.Nh3, 1....Nh6 and 2.Na3. One of them was Tartakower - Lilienthal, won by Tartakower in 20 moves. Tartakower played 6.hxg3, and that's what he calls Amar Gambit. If you have found out that 6.e4? is incorrect, you are a bit late. Welling said clearly that 6.e4 is refuted by 6...Qh4!.

Edit: ...with 1.Nh3, 1....Nh6 and 1.Na3.    

motörhead wrote on 02/13/10 at 15:09:26:



Ok, now my credulity is strained.  There's only one move that refutes this trash... stinking pile of ... errr... gambit???

Well that certainly is impressive scholarship.