Many thanks for all the excellent ideas!
I intend to stop this thread now, and close the competition, so if anyone has anything to add could they please do it very soon!

Nomination 12. ...Nc6

I thought about moves like 8. ... Ne4 or even 8. ... Nh7, because the possibility g4-g5 at any moment annoyed me and I stubbornly wanted to control square g5, but it seems g4-g5 is always possible to get dirty compensation at least. So I came to the conclusion, if g4-g5 is that annoying, then why not taking this pawn and  started digging up the game Barbero – Vegh.
The point why I´m optimistic about black´s chances, is the immediate trade of the darksquare bishops in move 9. In comparison to g2g4 ideas like in the Shabalov-Shirov attack in the Slav or Shirov´s g2g4 in the Philidor, where white can hope for an advantage due the bishoppair, this possibility doesn´t exist. Another point is, that black is slightly ahead in development, so why not open up the position?!  When I use the term “unclear”, I think both side have their chances with lots of different possibilities.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg5 0–0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.g4 Nxg4 9.Bxe7
[9.Rg1 Bxh4 10.Rxg4 Bf6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Rg3 c5 black is better]
9...Qxe7 10.cxd5
[10.Rg1 Nf6 11.Ne5 Nbd7 12.Qf3
a) 12.Qc2 Bb7 13.f4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 c5 black is better;
b) 12.f4 dxc4 13.Bg2 Nxe5 14.fxe5 Nd5 15.Nxd5 Qh4+ 16.Kd2 exd5 17.Bxd5 Rd8 (17...Rb8!? 18.Qe1 Qxe1+ 19.Raxe1 b5 20.Kc3 a5 unclear) 18.Bxa8 Qf2+ 19.Qe2 Rxd4+ 20.exd4 Qxd4+ 21.Ke1 Qxg1+ 22.Qf1 equal; 12...Nxe5 13.dxe5 Ne4 14.Nxe4 (14.cxd5 Nxc3 15.d6 cxd6 16.Qxa8 d5 17.bxc3 Qc7 18.f4 Bd7 19.Qxf8+ Kxf8 black is better) 14...dxe4 15.Qf6 Qxf6 16.exf6 g6 17.c5 Rd8 18.c6 e5 black is better; 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.Rg1 dxc4 12.Rxg4 (12.Be2 Nf6 13.0–0–0 c5 black is better (13...Nc6!?) ) 12...Bxf3 13.Rg3 Qf6 14.Bxc4 Nc6 15.a3 Ne7 16.Bd3 Rad8 17.Ne4 Bxe4 18.Bxe4 e5 19.d5 Nxd5 20.0–0–0 c6 21.Rdg1 Rd6 22.Rxg7+ (22.h4 Rfd8 23.h5 Kf8 and black is better) 22...Qxg7 23.Rxg7+ Kxg7 black is slightly better]
10...exd5 [10...Qb4 11.Qc2 Bb7 12.Be2 exd5 (12...Bxd5 13.a3 Qe7 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Rg1 Nf6 16.Nh4 with attacking chances) 13.Rg1 Nf6 14.0–0–0 with attacking chances]
11.Nxd5 [11.Rg1 Nf6 12.Ne5 (12.Qb3 c5! 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Bb7 15.Qh5 (15.Qf5 Nd7 16.Bd3 Nf6 (16...g6?? 17.Nh4+-) 17.Ne5 (17.Qf4 Bxf3 18.Qxh6 g6 19.Bxg6 fxg6 20.Rxg6+ Kf7 21.Rg7+ Ke8 22.Rxe7+ Kxe7 23.Qf4 Ne4 24.Qe5+ Kf7 25.Rc1 Kg6 26.dxc5 Rae8 27.Qc7 bxc5 28.Qc6+ Kh7 29.Qc7+ Kh6 30.Qc6+ Kh5 31.Qd5+ Kh4 32.Rc4 Rd8 33.Rxe4+ Kh3 34.Qb3 Rg8 35.Kf1 Rd1+ 36.Qxd1 Bxd1 37.Re7 black is slightly better) 17...Rfd8 18.0–0–0 (18.Qf4 Kf8 19.Qg3 Ne8 20.0–0–0 cxd4 unclear) 18...cxd4 19.Qf4 Nh5 20.Qf5 equal Nf6 21.Ng4 Kf8 22.Nxf6 Qxf6 23.Qxf6 (23.Qh7 dxe3 24.fxe3 (24.Rge1 Rac8+ 25.Kb1 Qxf2–+) 24...Qe5µ) 23...gxf6³) 15...Kh8 16.0–0–0 (16.Bd3 Nd7 17.Nh4 Qf6 18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.Nxf5 cxd4 20.Nxd4 Nc5 21.Be2) 16...Nd7 17.Bc4 cxd4 18.Rxd4 Rac8 19.Kb1 Be4+ 20.Ka1 Rc5³) 12...Nbd7 13.f4 Nxe5 14.fxe5 Ne4 black is slightly better]
11...Qd6 12.Nc3
[12.Nf4 Re8 13.Nd3 Nc6 black is slightly better]

12...Nc6 ! Nomination! My improvement to the game Barbero – Vegh. Black should develop his pieces as soon as possible to put pressure on the centre, Bc8 seems less effective on b7, very often it´s better to develop it on the c8-h3 diagonal .



13.Rg1
[13.d5 Nce5 14.Nxe5 (14.Rg1 Qb4 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Be2 Qxb2 17.Rc1 Re8 18.Qd2 Qxd2+ 19.Kxd2 Rd8 (19...Bb7 20.f4 Nd7 21.Nb5 Rad8 22.Rxc7 Nc5 23.d6 a6 =+ ) 20.f4 Ng6 =+) 14...Qxe5 (14...Nxe5 15.Be2 Bb7 16.f4 Ng6 17.Qd4 c6 18.Rg1 cxd5 19.0–0–0 Rac8 unclear) 15.Rg1 (15.Qd2 Nf6 16.0–0–0 Bg4 17.f4 Qd6 18.Re1 Rfd8 19.Bg2 Qc5 20.e4 c6 21.h3 Bh5 unclear) 15...Nf6 (15...f5 16.Rg3 Nxh2 17.f4 Qe7 18.Qe2 Nxf1 19.Qxf1 Rb8 20.Qc4 Qc5 21.Qxc5 bxc5 22.0–0–0 Kf7 23.Rdg1 Rg8 24.Kc2 =+) 16.Qf3 Bb7 17.0–0–0 Rad8 18.Bc4 (18.Bg2 b5 (18...a6!?) 19.Qg3 Qxg3 20.hxg3=) 18...Rfe8 19.Rg3 Ne4 20.Nxe4 Qxe4 21.Rd4 Qxf3 22.Rxf3Re5=(22...Kf8=) ;
13.Be2 Re8 (13...Nf6 14.Rg1 Bf5 (14...a6 15.e4 white is better) 15.Bd3 Be6 16.Qe2 (16.e4 Nxd4 black is better) 16...Nd5 17.Ne4 Qb4+ 18.Qd2 f5 19.Nc3 Nxc3 20.bxc3 Qa4 unclear ) 14.d5 (14.a3 Bb7 15.Nb5 Qe7 unclear) 14...Nce5 (14...Ne7!?) 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Rg1 Bf5 17.Qd2 Ng6 18.0–0–0 a6 19.Rg3 b5 20.Bd3 Bxd3 21.Qxd3 Rad8 =+]
13...Re8
[13...Nf6 14.Bb5 Bf5 15.Bxc6 Qxc6 16.Ne5 Qe6 17.f4 Rad8 unclear]
14.d5 [14.Rg3 Nf6 15.Bc4 (15.Bd3 Nb4³; 15.Bb5 a6 16.Bxc6 Qxc6=) 15...a6 16.Qc2 Be6 (16...Bg4!? 17.Qg6!? Re6 18.Bxe6 Qxe6 19.Qd3 Nb4 20.Qe2 Re8 21.Kf1 Bh3+ 22.Kg1 Nh5 23.Rxh3 Qxh3 24.Ne5 c5 25.Qf3 Qxf3 26.Nxf3 cxd4 27.Nxd4 Nd3=) 17.Bxe6 Qxe6 18.a3 Nh5 19.d5 Qf6 20.Rh3 (20.dxc6 Nxg3–+) 20...Nf4 21.Rg3 Nh5=; 14.Nb5 Qb4+ 15.Qd2 Nxe3 16.fxe3 Rxe3+ 17.Kd1 Rxf3 18.Rxg7+ Kxg7 19.Qg2+ Kf8 20.Qxf3 Bd7 =+; 14.Bb5 Bd7 (14...Bf5 15.h3 Nf6 16.Qe2 Nb4 17.0–0–0 c6 18.Bc4 b5 19.Bb3 a5 =+) 15.Bxc6 (15.d5 Nce5 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Qe2 b5 19.0–0–0 Rab8 unclear) 15...Qxc6 (15...Bxc6? 16.Rxg4+-) 16.Qe2 b5 17.Nxb5 (17.a3 a5 18.Nxb5 Re7³ (18...Nxe3 19.fxe3 Qxb5 20.Qxb5 Bxb5=) ) 17...Rab8 18.a4 a6 19.h3 axb5 20.hxg4 bxa4 =+; 14.Be2 Bf5 15.d5 Nb4 16.Rc1 Nf6 17.Nb5 Qxd5 18.Qd4 (18.Nxc7 Qxd1+ black is better) 18...Qxd4 19.Nfxd4 Bd7 20.Nxc7 Rac8 21.Rc3 Re5=]
14...Nce5
[14...Nxe3 15.fxe3 Rxe3+ 16.Be2 Ne5 unclear]
15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Qh5 Qf6 17.Rg3 Bf5 18.0–0–0 a6
[18...Bg6 19.Qe2 Nd7 20.Bh3 Nc5 unclear]
19.f4 Ng6 20.Bd3
[20.a3 Nh4 =+]
20...Bxd3 21.Rxd3 b5 =+

Summa summarum:
Black has very often the edge; white seems far away to get use of the open g-file;
8.g4 is ambitious, but too slowly.

I'd like to add my own idea. There is probably a huge hole in the analysis somewhere (trouble with the chess software, I think it should install, the setup program thinks otherwise ), but if not it should give black a very good game.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.g4 and here I think 8..Ba6(nomination) may be worthy of investigation. Afaik it has never been played or suggested, but to me it looks logical. Black threatens to pick up the c- or g-pawn when he wants. Another idea is to annoy the f1-bishop and to play the Lasker move at some point to simplify (it would seem others have the same idea).
So
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.g4 Ba6
and now:

The direct attempt -9.g5 Ne4, wich imo is bad.
a) 10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Nd2 hxg5 followed by f5 or somesuch. Black is a pawn up and it certainly isnt going to be white who will attack on the kingside
b) 10.gxh6 Bxh4 11.hxg7 Bxf2 12.Ke2 Bxc4 13.Qd3. I jsut put this one in for fun
c) 10.cxd5 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxf1 12.Kxf1 exd5 seems equal to me. Alternatively white could sac a piece for three pawns, but black wins one back.

9.Rg1 Not sure what the best answer is, but they all look good to me:
a1)9.. Ne4 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Nd2 f5 looks decent
a2)9.. g5 10.Bg3 Ne4 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Nd2 f5
a3)9.. c5 also may be worth a punt.

9.cxd5 Bxf1 10.Kxf1 Nxd5 also looks good after something like 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nxd5 exd5

Hopefully I will be able to analyse a little more later on, but for now this shoudl do.

I certainly like the classic look of Papageno's suggestion.  Regarding Heine Nielsen's Italian-QGD analogy, I would suggest that a quite possibly relevant difference is that the center is less fluid in those Pianissimo positions.

(oops, apparently "misplaced")

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 8.g4!? dxc4 9.Rg1

Better than 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.h4 Bb7 11.g5 hxg5 12.hxg5 Bxg5 13.Bxc4 (P. H. Nielsen - V. Georgiev, Dresden 2008). After 13...Bh6! (instead of the game continuation 13...c5 14.d5 Bh6) I don't see an advantage for White.  

9...Bb7

(a) 9...Nh7 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Bxc4 gave White a plus in J. Converset - M. Guimaraes, corr. 2002 (IECG).

(b) There are several other continuations. 9...g6 may be objectively best, when White is only slightly better after 10.g5 (more solid: 10.Bxc4 Bb7 11.Qe2 a6 12.Bd3) 10...Nd5 (10...Nh7 11.Bg2 c6 12.Ne5) 11.Qc2, e. g. 11...Nc6?! 12.a3 Ba6 13.Ne4 Na5 14.Ne5 Kh8 15.Nf6 16.gxf6 g5 17.Bg3 Qxf6 18.h4!. - The text move, Black's most active reply, transposes to 8...Bb7 9.Rg1 dxc4, given as unclear by René Olthof in his comment on C. Caminade - T. Gouret, Val Maubuee 1990. However, instead of Olthof's 10.Bxc4, White has a better move:

10.g5! (nomination)



10...Ne8

(a) 10...Nh7? 11.gxh6 Bxh4 12.Rxg7+ Kh8 13.Qc2 f5 14.Ne5 +/-.

(b) 10...hxg5 11.Bxg5 c5 12.Ne5 cxd4 13.exd4 +=, for example 13...Re8 14.Bxc4 Nc6 15.Ba6! Bxa6 16.Nxc6 Qc7 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Qf3 Bb7 19.Qg3 e5 20.0-0-0.

11.Bxc4 Nd6

The critical reply. After 11...Nc6 12.a3 White is just a bit better, and 11...g6 12.Ne5 hxg5 13.Qc2! Ng7 14.0-0-0! is another strong gambit line: 14...Bd5 (14...Nf5 15.d5! or 14...gxh4 15.d5!) 15.Bg3 +=, since the development of Nb8 is a problem: 15...Bxc4 16.Nxc4 Nd7? 17.d5 Qc8 18.dxe6 Nxe6 19.Nd5 Bd8 20.h4 +/-.

12.d5!


12...g6

Alternatives:

(a) 12...Nf5 13.gxh6! Bxh4 (13...Nxh4? 14.hxg7) 14.hxg7 Re8 15.Ng5! Bxg5 16.Qh5 Bh6 17.dxe6 Rxe6 18.Qxf5 +-.

(b) 12...c5 13.gxh6 Bxh4 14.dxe6 Nxc4 15.Rxg7+ Kh8 16.Qc2 f5 17.Rxb7 Nxe3 18.Qe2 +/-.

(c) 12...Nxc4 13.gxh6 Bxh4 14.Rxg7+ Kh8 15.Qd3 transposes to the position in our main line (after 16.Rg7), only with a move less for both sides.

(d) 12...h5 13.Bb3 Nf5 14.Bg3 Nxg3 15.hxg3 +=.

(e) 12...Nd7 13.Bd3 Re8 (13...exd5? 14.gxh6) 14.dxe6 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Ne5 16.Qd5 Nxd3+ 17.Qxd3 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 hxg5 19.exf7+ Nxf7 20.Qxd8 +=.  

13.Qd3 Nxc4 14.gxh6 Bxh4

14...Nxb2? 15.Rxg6+ Kh8 16.Qd4+ f6 17.Rg7! Bb4 18.Ne5! fxe5 19.Qe4 +-.

15.Rxg6+ Kh8 16.Rg7 f5 17.Qxc4 Bf6 18.Rd1!

But not 18.0-0-0? Bxd5 19.Nxd5 exd5 20.Rxd5 Qe8!, when 21.Nh4?? Bxh4 22.Qxh4 fails to Qc6+.

18...e5

(a) 18...Bxd5 19.Nxd5 exd5 20.Rxd5 Qe8 21.Nh4 +-.

(b) 18...Bxg7 19.hxg7+ Kxg7 20.Nd4 Qe7 21.Nxe6+ Kf7 21.Nxc7 +/-.

19.Ne4! Bxg7

19...fxe4? 20.Ng5! Bxg5 21.Qxe4 followed by Qh7 mate.

20.hxg7+ Kxg7 21.Neg5 Rf6

Neither 21...Bc8 22.Qh4 Rh8 23.Qg3 +/- nor 21...Qe7 22.Ne6+ +/- is an improvement.

22.Ne6+ Rxe6 23.dxe6 Qxd1+!

23...Qe7 24.Nxe5 a5 25.a3 Be4 26.Qc3.

24.Kxd1 Bxf3+

White has an advantage, but the ending remains difficult. For example: 25.Kd2 Kf6 26.Qh4+ Kxe6 27.Qh6+ Kd7 (27...Kd5 28.Qh3 Be4 29.f3) 28.Qf6 Be4 29.f3 Bd5

(a) 30.Qxe5 Kc6 31.e4 (or 31.Qxf5 Nd7 32.e4 Bxa2) 31...fxe4 32.fxe4 Bxa2 33.b3 Kb7 34.Qb2 Bxb3 35.Qxb3 Nc6 36.h4 a5! =.

(b) 30.Qxf5+!? Kd6 31.Qf6+ Be6 32.Qd8+ Kc6 33.Qe8+ Bd7 34.Qxe5 Kb7 +=.

Here is the YearBook 91 survey:

Queen’s Gambit Declined
Tartakower Variation QO 7.1 (D58)

More g4 please!

by René Olthof

1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Be7
4. Nf3 Nf6
5. Bg5 h6
6. Bh4 0-0
7. e3 b6
8. g4



It’s not just a trend, it’s a virus – playing g2-g4 in the opening between move 4 and 8. I’m not sure when it started and who started it. Perhaps in the early 1990’s with Shabalov’s 7.g4 in the Semi- Slav. Shirov followed suit in the Philidor with his 5.g4 gambit and there is also Zviagintsev’s 4.g4 in the English.
In the FORUM Section of Yearbook 67 I pointed out that even the venerable Queen’s Gambit was not immune to this hyper-aggressive bug. In Bergez-Schekachev, Creon 2000, White flashed out with 5.g4.

The Origin
I believe all this time a predecessor has been totally over looked. Gerardo Barbero is an Argentinean grandmaster who moved to Europe in the mid-1980’s. Or, more specifically, he moved to Hungary. In the 13th Elekes Memorial (emlekverseny in Hungarian), held in May 1988, Barbero anticipated this trend and at the same time took it to the next level avant la lettre. Not just g2-g4, when Black’s king’s bishop had moved, but g2-g4 when the pawn on g7 was actually covered. And lo and be hold, against the Tartakower Variation, imaginably the most solid of all opening lines and the trusted choice of many world champions. Just think of the stir this must have caused!
So I asked Endre Vegh, Barbero’s most esteemed opponent, about his recollection of this game. Much to my astonishment Vegh, a fine theoretician, couldn’t recall any fuss. ‘Our game was really a long time ago.’ Sure, but perhaps Barbero shared some inside information about the origin of 8.g4, I wanted
to know. Nada. ‘I’m al most sure Barbero didn’t tell me anything special about this move. I have a good memory for such things and I would have remembered!’

The Theoretical Merits
With the first protagonists unable to provide further information (Barbero sadly passed away at an early age in 2001), it will be difficult to discover more about the history of 8.g4, so why not concentrate on its theoretical merits?
Clearly the first move we should have a look at is accepting the challenge (8...Ng4), simultaneously stop ping the further advance of the bold foot soldier, and incidentally also the move played by Vegh at the premiere.
Barbero regained his sacrificed pawn on d5 and then rapidly cleared the long diagonal on move 12-14. He missed his big chance on move 15. Clearly this is not a case where accepting the pawn sacrifice is the way to go.

Parrying a Flank Attack
There is a general rule that says ‘flank attacks should be parried in the centre’. This strategy can be implemented in three different ways that all make perfect sense. Black can put the bishop on the long diagonal (8...Bb7), he can strike out in the centre (8...c5), or open the long diagonal (8...dc4). All three moves have only been played a few times, so there is little practical support for one continuation or the other. In the three over-the-board games the crisis peaked around move 15, with both sides having their chances. At last year’s Olympiad in Dresden, Peter Heine Nielsen showed this line to the Great Carlsen, who supposedly was not impressed at all. Nielsen then decided to let his pieces do the talking – his win over Bulgarian IM Veselin Georgiev, a representative of the International Committee of Silent Chess (ICSC), the federation for the Deaf, spoke louder than words. Remarkably no colleague has followed in Hansen’s footsteps.

Conclusion
I am sure we won’t have to wait an other 20 years for a few more games with 8.g4. Now is the time to experiment. More g4 please!