[quote author=7B787274150 link=1262053784/10#10 date=1262873441]Many thanks again ... Yes, it's quite a game! I shall take another look, both with and without an engine ...

[/quote]
9.Nc3! with or without an engine.
I can sympathize if people do not want to disclose their secret TNs, but:
In 1997 Gary Lane gave 9.Nc3 as critical in the German magazine Kaissiber 2.
In the same issue Jonathan Rogers claimed he had an improvement over Lane's analysis.
There already was Cunliffe-Rogers, corr 1996 (9...Nxc6 10.d5 0-0 11.Bxc6 Ba6 etc. 1-0 31)
Then Schenning-Flude, email 1998, 11...Ng4 and 0-1/36. However, that game was won for White.
Most recent is:H.Hunt-J.Rogers, Sunningdale 2008, where White deviated with 11.Be3 Qb8 12.Bxc6. 1-0/25.
So
1) How does Black improve on Hunt-Rogers? (11...Qc7 is maybe worth a try)
2) What did Rogers intend after 11.Bxc6 ?

Michael,

I must take some credit (or blame!) for encouraging Philip to play the Elephant at that Olympiad. He had a bad experience with it in one earlier game, and I urged him to try it again. I well remember his exultant email I received when he crushed his titled opponent so dramatically. 

Philip deserves his moniker as "The Caribbean Tal" -- the game is simply astonishing, as Black plays (to borrow a phrase from E. J. Diemer) "von ersten Zug an auf Matt." Computer analysis might discover a hole in Philip's play (maybe 15.Nd2 improves, though it's not entirely clear: White needs to improve on the line 15...e3 16.Ne4 Bb4+ 17.Kf1 Nxc4 18.d6! Ne5! 19.Bd5+ Kh8 20.b3 Ba6 21.Bc4 Nxc4 22.bxc4 Rc8!), but the point is that he took the astonishing risk of sacrificing the entire Rook in order to keep White's King in the center and mobilize everything else he had. How many of us would do that OTB at a World Olympiad, even if we had studied that very line beforehand? That takes admirable courage.

As I recall, Philip won another Elephant at the same event and drew a third, all with higher-rated players. And then, a couple of years later, there was the dramatic downing of Nigel Short ...

I have played the Elephant several thousand times in blitz on the ICC and found it to be a very effective weapon, even against titled players. Yes, there are a couple of lines that are theoretically supposed to end up in a plus for White, but my opponents found them in only about 3% of those games, and even there familiarity and a few quirky TNs are easily worth a pawn at blitz or bullet time controls. And at least twice as many opponents fell into something horrible and lost in 15 moves or less. 

I've also taught it to a young student who turned around and shellacked the opposition with it in local and state level tournaments. If you're looking for an opening that can be learned and played pretty quickly and has lots of atom bomb potential against an unprepared opponent, check it out.

Since I had put the time into learning it, I have also played the Elephant OTB, beating a master with it in my last outing. (Not entirely due to the opening: I equalized pretty easily and probably had =+, but then mutual errors ensued, mine being the next-to-last.) 

I'm not claiming that it is an industrial-strength opening, but TN's final remark is just about right. If you like the Elephant, play it!

Incidentally: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nxd5 Bd6 4.d4 dxe4 5.Bc4 Bxe5 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.Qxe5 Qxe5 8.dxe5 Nc6 is nothing special for White, += at best. The Bishop pair looks nice, but it seems that there's no way to take advantage of it. I was always content to see this line come up.

The problem with this opening is that it is unplayable at 2300+ level, and sets the player up for bad habits later onward, especially the trap of playing trappy but dubious openings. McDonald's 'Starting Out: 1.e4' is one book which contained a refutation that looked pretty convincing to me. 

But if you aren't trying to become a titled player and just play for enjoyment, then by all means play the Elephant Gambit and enjoy your chess.

A couple of links:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz15.txt
is an old kibitzer column by Harding with good discussion of various lines

http://www.ericschiller.com/pdf/ElephantGambit_SBACO.pdf
are a few pages from a Schiller book [yeah, I know ] discussing the gambit from White's perspective.

Here are a couple of lines against the Elephant:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nxe5 dxe4 4. d4 Bd6 5. Bc4 Bxe5 6. Qh5 Qe7 7. Qxe5

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nxe5 dxe4 4. d4 Be7 5. Bc4 Be6 6. Bxe6 fxe6 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Nxg6 Nf6 9. Qb5+ c6 10. Qxb7