trw wrote on 06/14/10 at 18:00:08:

This line isn't too bad, at least it offers practical chances. But 9...Nc6 is more precise, which doesn't waste a tempo. Maybe then 10.Nbd2 =+. 

In a few years online publishing will be safe and online translation much improved. Now Kaissiber is only available in German (+ Italian); www.kaissiber.de; e-mail: sb@kaissiber.de ; but a German chess board has also 64 squares.

How does one get these Kaissibers? Are they only in German?

Granted I don't play 7. d4 but the idea is an interesting. I think I still prefer 7. Bd3.

Still for fun, whats wrong with 7. d4 exd4+ 8. Be2 Qb6 9. 0-0 Bc5 10. axb4 Bxb4 11. Nxd4 though its probably = I definitely prefer white here.

linksspringer wrote on 03/31/10 at 21:37:28:

By the way, an interesting related idea that I ran into recently is
1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 e5 6. c4 Qe6 7. d4
where it may actually have been better for white that the bishop was still on c1.

Well, I'll admit I was already out of theory by move 4 (I vaguely remembered that there was this d7-d5 + Qxd5 idea with the threat of Qe5+, but that is all I really knew). I had never faced the wing gambit in a game before, so I guess that's a good practical argument for it. Additionally it looks like even if I had known my theory this particular line is not mentioned in any of my books.

I probably had to go for the complications following 7...exd4+, which actually seems fine for white, but instead played 7...Nd7 8. Be2 Nh6 9. O-O Be7 10. d5 Qb6 11. axb4 Bxb4 12. Ba3 O-O 13.Nbd2 Bxa3 14. Rxa3 f6 15. Rb3 Qa5 16. Ne4 b6 17. Qc2 f5 18. Nd6 Qc5 19. Nxc8 Raxc8 20. Qb2 Nf7 21.Ra1 Rc7 22. Nd2 Qe7 23. Rba3 Nc5 24. Qa2 Ra8 25. h3 e4 26. Nb3 Nxb3 27. Rxb3
By this point I had consolidated my a clear extra pawn (I was already at least equal after 14...f6). I eventually won after a rather 53 move struggle. White can of course improve e.g. on moves 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 etc. My point however was more that there's plenty of unexplored options that actually seem most playable.
The computer wants to go into 1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 e5 6. c4 Qe6 7. d4 exd4+ as black. 
 
However it is rather easy to go wrong as black, after some fiddling about with Rybka, I for example managed to produce the following example:
8.Be2 Nc6 9. O-O Nf6 10. Re1 Be7 11. Bf1 Qd6 12. axb4 Nxb4 13. Ra4 Nc6 14. Ba3 Qc7 15. Bxe7 Nxe7 16. Na3 Bd7 17. Nb5 Bxb5 18. cxb5 O-O 19.Rc4 Qd7 20.Rxd4, which looks rather nice for white. In other lines, white (perhaps less favourably) regains the a7 pawn.
PatzerNoster wrote on 06/14/10 at 01:53:07:

PatzerNoster wrote on 06/14/10 at 01:53:07:

It at least looks murky enough to be playable for white in a practical game. Black does not have any really easy ways to challenge the white center and seems to be a bit passive (ideas with d6+e5 without g7-g6 seem to fight for the centre a bit more). E.g. in similar Pirc positions c7-c5 would be crucial (and the center would not be bolstered by a pawn on c3, because a knight would be there). On the other hand, black has no weakness and an extra pawn.

Will look at your suggestion more closely, Stefan. I presume the Bishop is tucked back to -f1 before you play d4 ?

The 2 lines that according to my experience give white the most problems are:

1.Taking the pawn on a3 followed by a setup of d6 Nf6 e5 Nbd7 Qc7 Be7 b6 a6 and simply holding the line on e5 where white should simply play normal moves like he isn't a pawn down.

2. Like mentioned by Dimis 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.axb4(best) Nxd5 is interesting especially because the sometimes recommended gambit line 6.d4 fails on e5!. but after the logical 6. b5 followed by development ex 6...e5 7.Bc4 we have an unexplored and interesting position with chances for both sides.

Could you supply some lines, in particular following 7. c4 Qe6 ?

I was thinking more of 3. ...d5 ; 4. ed Qxd5 ; 5. Ktf3 e5

I don't see 3. ...d5 analyzed there. From what i can tell, it more or less refutes 3. Ktf3.
White should try 3. a3 or 3. d4 although these too are almost certainly insufficient for equality.