Black has 7...Qa5. It doesn't transpose though to the Anti-Geller 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 cxd4 8.Bd3 Qa5, which is superior to Qc7.

MNb wrote on 04/24/11 at 21:37:37:


I have recorded:

8.dxc5 Nd7! 9.Be3 Qc7 (9...Qa5  10.Ne2 Nxc5 11.oo oo 12.Qb1 Ne4 13.c4 Nf5 14.cxd5 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qc5 16.Bxe4 Qxe3+ 17.Rf2 Qxe4 18.Nf4 b6 19.Qb4 Re8 20.Re2 Qxb4 Anjuhin-Shalaev,Novaya Ladoga  2008 1-0) 10.Qg4 Nxc5 11.Qxg7 Nxd3+ 12.cxd3 Rg8=

   looks like an easy draw for Black if he chooses to play with Qc7  (for Qa5,not so easy because White has one common idea to play Qb4 after Qb1, with the idea of pressure on b file and improving structure if Black dares to play Qxb4). At the end, White queen caanot leaves the c3-h8  diagonal then rook moves along the g file is enough)

8.dxc5 Qa5 9.Ne2 Nd7 and here White can transposes to the IM game quoted above. 

For  10.Rb1  see Berg-Hansen,Taastrup 1990 (Tiemann) Sariego-Arencibia,Bayamo 1990 (Watson)  and Djuric, Stefan-Fraser Mitchell, J.M. Genova ITA, 7th Open 
1-0 Genova ITA, Round 1 20030802 ; Plachetka, Jan-Dvorak, Jan Stare Mesto CZE, Open 2005 
1-0 Stare Mesto CZE Round 7 20050817

I notice that Nunn thought 8...Qa5 9. Ne2 Nd7 (iso Chernin's 9...0-0) to be unclear.

With black I play 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3 5.bxc3 Ne7

Even the WRG is objective =+ or = if Black knows what to do, I do not understand why I should learn this stuff ...

6.e5 is the mainline
6.Bd3 seems to be no problem for black

Are there any disadvantages for black with 5. ...Ne7?

Hi I hope that you all noted that Tom Winkelmann had a tremendous result in the 37th ICCF world Correspondence Championship.

flaviddude wrote on 03/08/11 at 10:33:54:


Website purchased http://www.winkelmannreimergambit.com It may be a few days before this appears on search engines

Existing website uploaded.

I have found many more games to add and then I must clean up the database. 

Do not hesitate to send me new games to davidflude@pacific.net.au   

I can find the games, just don't have enough time to post them here. Not sure if 7 Qd2 is the correct move here, though. As for correct play, well, in OTB  chess that does not occur often, so White has chances. Correspondence is something else, when players can ask computers for answers.

Flude should be able to post stuff soon enough. Give him time.

Sounds good! Use chesslive.de database. See if you can shut up these who say 6...c5 and 6...Bd7 are "refutations" of the WRG. I shut up 6...b6 some time earlier.

flaviddude wrote on 03/08/11 at 09:47:33:

Against 6...c5 I found a number of games.

Schmid (2258)  - Magnussen(2063), Bargteide Open, 2010, saw White employ 7 Qd2!? and 000 to win the game later on.

Leisebein - Kraemer, correspondence 2005, saw 7 Bf4!? which led to a short draw. After 7 Bf4!? Winckelmann-Von Zitzewitz, correspondence 1999, was drawn after a long fight in the endgame.

There are other games too, but I had not the time to copy them over here.

Gambit wrote on 01/10/11 at 05:03:05:


I don't think 14.Qg3 deserves an exclam. 15...Qe7 16.Qh4 g6 idea 17...Kg7 is much better and probably winning. Give Black 10 minutes more and he finds it.

Of course White's setup doesn't work against 6...Bd7 evt. 7...Bc6, so this is probably superior.

It's true though that the Bb5+ idea is nice against 6...b6.

Ha-ha-ha!! LOL!! 

MNb wrote on 01/05/11 at 12:54:14:


W means West 

Glenn Snow wrote on 01/05/11 at 07:50:46:


Maybe the queenless middlegame after 8.fxe4 Qh4+ 9.Kd2 Qxe4 10.Qf3 Qxf3 11.Nxf3 is not too bad for White with the centralized King and the two Bishops. 11...e4 can then be answered with 12.Bxh6 gxh6 (12...exf3 13.Bf4!) 13.Re1 f5 14.g4!? O-O 15.Ne5 

I take it the game you give is correspondence, where computers are used?

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3 Bxc3 5 bxc3 dxe4 6 f3 b6 7 Bb5 c6 8 Bc4 Bb7 9 Qe2 ef3 10 Nxf3 Nf6 11 00 00 12 Bd3 Nbd7 13 Bg5 Bc7 14 Qf2 c5 15 Qh4 Qc6 16 Rae1 cxd4 17 cxd4 Qd5 18 c4 Qc6 19 Rf2 Ba6 20 Ne5! 1-0,
Zilbermints - BengalTiger (IM), 3 0 rated blitz, Internet Chess Club,  12/30/2006

The response 6...e5 is not to be feared. I have played 7 Be3! here, with good results.

I will search my games and post them here.

To you it is inferior. Not to me.

I never said the WRG was inferior. You said it, MNb, not me.

As for a boring game, let me point out that in Winckelmann-Knudsen, both opponents knew the best moves. But then, this is correspondence, not over-the-board chess. I assure you, in OTB chess, with no computer to help you, things are much more lively!

Then, unless you want to contradict yourself, the WRG is inferior to the main line 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5. 
So there is no need to risk a pawn in your opinion, especially as it may lead to a boring game (see Winckelman-Knudsen above). The main line 4.e5 is never dull.

I don't like the idea to prevent the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit by making the second best move 5...Ne7. Apart from 6.e5 +=/= leading to the normal Winawer positions White can also try to get a more open position for his bishops with 6.Bd3 c5 7.exd5.

Gambit wrote on 10/29/10 at 19:37:37:


Well ... thats fine. But thats not the point. The point is if the line is good or not. So the question is, would you play the line when you're opponent knows that you will play this line in the next game vs him. 

To play an offbeat gambit where you know the theory and the opponent doesn't, and afterwards claim about "practical chances" is - sorry - just nuts. The "practical chances" of an opening are revealed, when you play vs someone who knows the theory as good as you do. Otherwise it just a matter of "I know something that you don't." Which is quite a different thing.

And - btw - I play the french and I got a score of (I guess) about 80% with black vs that line. I just simply don't play 5...dxe4, but 5...Ne7. Usually then it is all over with gambitting. And I outplay all those gambitteers in a "normal" french position. 

Edited:

LDZ, wake me up if someone plays 6...c5 or 6...Bd7 against you. Your hero Winckelmann recently ended second in the ICCF-WCh. He apparently isn't so afraid of computers as you are. The last time he played his gambit seems to be 2001; an eventless draw in 17 moves.

Winckelmann,T (2494) - Knudsen,J (2485) [C15]
WC25-SF15 ICCF Email, 01.08.2001

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 e5 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bc4 exd4 9.cxd4 Qh4+ 10.g3 Qe7 11.Qe2 Bf5 12.a4 Nf6 13.Ba3 Qc7 14.fxe4 Qa5+ 15.Kf2 Nxe4+ 16.Kg2 Nd7 17.Nf3 ½-½

Still congratulations with your nice performance, albeit I would be much more impressed if it were a game with classical time control.

Gambit wrote on 11/25/10 at 04:28:56:


I don't understand why a player would get so heated over an unrated blitz game. I'll warn you though, ICC has a reputation for wrongly identifying players as cheats when they are innocent. Some of my friends have been wrongly accused and have wisely switched to Playchess.

Konstriktor wrote on 10/28/10 at 12:13:03:


Lev Zilbermints, the man of 1000 Gambits.

My favorite LDZ lines: 1.f4 h6!? & "This Isn't Dunkin Donuts!!"

How is 6...Bd7 and ...Bc6 holding up? I though that was quite a neat idea when I first saw it, just pretending it's a Fort Knox. In one recent otb game Kislov-Khamitsky 2006 (quoted by MNb above), White played 7.Qd2 Bc6 8.Qf2, but that can't possibly be critical.

Gambit wrote on 10/29/10 at 19:37:37:

That's because your opponents don't know their theory. If they do and if they have the skills to exploit the opening advantage you will get creamed.
You know this or you would not have called 6...c5 "yellow". You always do when some defence proves to be strong.
In the meantime I will be waiting for your brilliant ideas after 6...c5 to come, which, just like in ...c6 vs. the BDG, probably will be when the cows come home.

Winckelmann excepted, many White players did not play well. In two games Moser played, Blacked avoided the gambit with 11...e3? but won because White played badly later.

As for theory, yes there is theory, like in every other opening. Sources are Das Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit I (1995) II (1998) and Schach-Archive #46.
In the last one, Grandmaster Lev Gutman does the analyses.

To win with the WRG, you have to know the opening inside out, and then some. When you do not know it well, you lose. Christ, that's how I first learned the BDG, back in 1991! It was awhile before I started beating Masters with it regularly, but I did, eventually.
The same holds true for the WRG, King's Gambit, and any other opening.

Computer is all very good, but in over-the-board games you do not have the benefit of computer assistance. Also, when you play 1 e4, you have no idea what the opening will be: Caro-Kann, Sicilian, Pirc, Latvian Gambit or French Defense. So, if the White player is well-prepared, he can win with the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit.

Finally, in Das WRG I (1995) Winckelmann gives a number of games against Fritz 2 and Pentium computers. Both of these chess engines, strong at the time, lost to the WRG!

I don't care what the detractors say. I am going to play the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit in over-the-board chess and win tons of games with it!

6...Nd7 7 Nh3! and now:

7...exf3 8 Qxf3

7...Ngf6 8 Nf2 ef3 9 Qf3 00 10 Bd3

6...b6 7 Nh3! Bb7 8 fxe4 Be4 9 Ng5 Bc6 10 Bc4?! Bxg2 11 Qg4 Bh1?! 12 Nf7 Kf7? 13 Qe6+ Kf8 14 Qf7 mate, Winckelmann-Brinkmann, blitzpartie, 1995

6...b6 7 Nh3 Bb7 8 fxe4 Be4 9 Ng5 Bg6 10 Bd3 Nf6 11 00 Nbd7 12 Bf4 Bxd3 13 Qxd3 h6 14 Qh3 Nf8 15 Be5 Ng6 16 Nxe6!! fxe6 17 Qxe6+ Qe7 18 Qc6+ Kf7 19 Rae1! +- 1-0/30, Winckelmann-Gaard Schweden, corr. 1993  

My opinion is that the players having the White pieces in the WRG games you posted did not know the theory.

@TonyRo

I found out 

Konstriktor wrote on 10/28/10 at 12:13:03:


You'll figure it out eventually, after which you'll regret you asked.

John Watson's review of "Four Gambits to Beat the French" gives some pointers, including 6...e5 and 6...Nd7 as well (though I don't agree with him that the WRG is the best of the four gambits, in my opinion the Milner-Barry, though still unsound, gives slightly better practical chances than the WRG).
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatson13.html

I may have mentioned this earlier, but after 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4, 6.Qg4 here is both sound and slightly offbeat.

Grabarczyk,B (2365) - Gdanski,J (2485) [C15]
POL-chT Lubniewice, 1993

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 e5 7.Be3 exd4 8.cxd4 Nh6 9.fxe4 Qh4+ 10.Kd2 Qxe4 11.Nf3 Nf5 12.Bb5+ Nc6 13.Re1 0-0 14.c3 Nxe3 15.Rxe3 Qf4 16.Qf1 Na5 17.Rb1 Be6 18.g3 Qd6 19.Bd3 h6 20.Re5 Qxa3 21.Reb5 b6 22.Ne5 Qd6 23.Qe2 c6 24.R5b2 Rab8 25.g4 c5 26.g5 cxd4 27.cxd4 f6 28.Ng6 fxg5 29.Nxf8 Kxf8 30.Rb4 Qf4+ 31.Kc2 Bg4 32.Qe5 0-1

Thiel,T (2265) - Schaefer,M (2455) [C15]
Muenster op Muenster (4), 1993

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Nxd7 9.Qe2 exf3 10.Nxf3 Ngf6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bg5 Qc7 13.Ne5 cxd4 14.Bxf6 Nxf6 15.cxd4 Nd7 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Rf4 Rac8 18.Raf1 Rc3 19.R1f3 Qc6 20.Qf1 Rxf3 21.Qxf3 Qxc2 22.Qxb7 Qc1+ 23.Rf1 Qe3+ 0-1


Velicka,P (2425) - Babula,V (2530) [C15]
CZE-chT 9495 (1), 1995

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Be3 Qa5 8.dxc5 Nc6 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Qd6 exf3 11.gxf3 Qxc3 12.Bb5 Bd7 13.Ne2 Qe5 14.Rab1 Qxd6 15.cxd6 0-0 16.Rhg1 Rfc8 17.Bxc6 Bxc6 18.Bd4 Ne8 19.Nf4 g6 20.Nh5 Kf8 21.Nf6 Nxf6 22.Bxf6 Ke8 23.c4 b6 24.Rgc1 Kd7 25.c5 Rcb8 26.Bd4 bxc5 27.Bxc5 e5 28.h4 f5 29.Ke3 a6 30.Rb4 Rxb4 31.axb4 a5 32.Ra1 axb4 33.Rxa8 Bxa8 34.Bxb4 f4+ 35.Kf2 Ke6 36.Ba3 Bc6 37.Bb4 Kf5 38.Ba3 h6 39.Bb2 Be8 40.Ba3 Bc6 41.Bb2 Bb5 42.Bc3 Bd7 43.Bb2 g5 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Bc3 Bc6 46.Ba5 e4 47.fxe4+ Kxe4 48.Bd8 g4 49.Bh4 Kf5 50.Ke2 Ke4 51.Kf2 Ke5 52.Bg5 g3+ 53.Kg1 f3 54.Be3 Ke4 55.Bb6 Bb5 56.d7 Bxd7 57.Kf1 Bb5+ 58.Ke1 Kf4 59.Bg1 Kg4 60.Bc5 Kh3 0-1


Keller,M (2405) - Skorna,U (2345) [C15]
corr MN/012 ICCF, 30.06.1995

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Qe2 cxd4 9.fxe4 Qa5 10.Rb1 Qxc3+ 11.Bd2 Qc7 12.Nf3 Ne7 13.0-0 Nbc6 14.Qc4 0-0 15.Bb4 Rfc8 16.Ng5 Be8 17.Bxc6 Nxc6 18.Qxe6 h6 19.Bd6 hxg5 20.Qxe8+ Rxe8 21.Bxc7 Rac8 22.Bg3 b6 23.Rfe1 Nd8 24.Rb4 Ne6 25.Bf2 Rxc2 26.Bxd4 a5 0-1


Armanda,I (2235) - Bilobrk,F (2355) [C15]
CRO-chT2 Tucepi, 1996

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 Nc6 7.Nh3 Nf6 8.Bb5 e5 9.Nf2 Qd5 10.dxe5 Qxe5 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.0-0 0-0 13.fxe4 Nxe4 14.Nd3 Qd5 15.Qe1 f5 16.Rf3 g5 17.Rb1 h6 18.Rb4 c5 19.c4 Qe6 20.Ra4 f4 21.Bb2 Kh7 22.Qa5 Qb6 23.Be5 Rf7 24.Qe1 Bf5 25.Ra5 Re8 26.Rb5 Qc6 27.Qa5 a6 28.Rb1 Be6 29.Nb2 Bg4 30.Nd3 Bxf3 31.gxf3 Nd6 0-1


Zelic,M (2345) - Levacic,P (2350) [C15]
CRO-chT2 Tucepi, 1996

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 Bd7 7.Nh3 Bc6 8.fxe4 Bxe4 9.Ng5 Bg6 10.Rb1 Qd5 11.c4 Qc6 12.Be2 Nd7 13.0-0 h6 14.Nf3 Ngf6 15.Bf4 0-0 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Bxe5 Nd7 18.Bf4 Rad8 19.Rb5 Nb6 20.Rc5 Qe4 21.Rxc7 Rfe8 22.Qd3 Rd7 23.Qxe4 Bxe4 24.Rxd7 Nxd7 25.Bd3 Bc6 26.Re1 Rd8 27.c5 Nf6 28.Be5 Ne8 29.c3 Rd7 30.Be2 Nc7 31.Bxc7 Rxc7 32.Rb1 Kf8 33.Kf2 Ke7 34.g3 e5 35.Ke3 Ke6 36.Rf1 Re7 37.Bg4+ Kd5 38.Bf3+ Kc4 39.Be2+ Kxc3 40.Rc1+ Kb2 41.Rd1 exd4+ 42.Kxd4 Rxe2 0-1


Zelic,M (2345) - Krumpacnik,D (2395) [C15]
Split Postar Split, 1996

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 Nc6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.Nh3 a6 9.Bxc6 Bxc6 10.fxe4 Bxe4 11.0-0 Qd5 12.Qe2 Bf5 13.Nf4 Qe4 14.Qc4 0-0-0 15.Nd3 Qd5 16.Qxd5 Rxd5 17.Ne5 Nf6 18.Nxf7 Rf8 19.Ne5 Bxc2 20.Rf2 Be4 21.Bg5 Bf5 22.Re1 Rg8 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Nc4 Rg5 25.Ne3 Ra5 26.h4 Rg7 27.Nxf5 exf5 28.Re6 Rxa3 29.Rxf6 Rxc3 30.R2xf5 Rcg3 31.Rf8+ Kd7 32.Rf2 a5 33.h5 R3g4 34.h6 Re7 35.R8f7 Rxd4 36.Rg7 Rd1+ 37.Kh2 Rd6 38.Rff7 Rxh6+ 39.Kg1 Rxf7 0-1


David,A (2455) - Nikolay,L (2510) [C15]
Paris op Paris (2), 1996

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 b6 7.Nh3 Bb7 8.Bb5+ Nd7 9.fxe4 Bxe4 10.0-0 Ngf6 11.Ng5 Bg6 12.Bc6 0-0 13.c4 Rc8 14.Re1 e5 15.d5 h6 16.Nh3 Ne4 17.Bb2 Re8 18.a4 Re7 19.a5 Ndc5 20.Qf3 Qd6 21.Re3 Rf8 22.Rea3 a6 23.axb6 cxb6 24.Re3 f5 25.Ba3 Be8 26.Bxe8 Rexe8 27.Qe2 Nf6 28.Kh1 f4 29.Bxc5 bxc5 30.Rea3 Ra8 31.Nf2 Rfb8 32.Ra5 Rb4 33.Ne4 Nxe4 34.Qxe4 Rab8 35.h3 Rb1+ 36.Kh2 Rxa1 37.Rxa1 Ra8 38.Re1 0-1


Winckelmann,T (2400) - Hage,H (2407) [C15]
corr WRG Invitational SEMI, 15.09.1999

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Qd2 Nf6 8.Bb2 0-0 9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.Nh3 Bc6 11.Ng5 Nbd7 12.Re1 exf3 13.gxf3 cxd4 14.cxd4 Rc8 15.Rg1 g6 16.Ne4 Qc7 17.Kb1 Bd5 18.Bd3 Bc4 19.Bxc4 Nxe4 20.fxe4 Qxc4 21.d5 Rc5 22.Rg3 Rfc8 23.Rc3 Qa6 24.Rxc5 Rxc5 25.dxe6 Qxe6 26.Rd1 Rc7 27.Qd5 Qxd5 28.exd5 f5 29.Bd4 Kf7 30.a4 Rc4 31.Bxa7 Rxa4 32.Bf2 Ke7 33.Kb2 Kd6 34.Kb3 b5 35.Be1 Nc5+ 36.Kb2 Na6 37.Rd3 f4 38.Rh3 h5 39.Rb3 Nc7 40.Bh4 Rd4 41.Bg5 Nxd5 42.Bh6 b4 43.Rf3 Ke5 44.Rf1 Rd2 0-1


Moser,E (2223) - Baumegger,S (2409) [C15]
AUT-ch Vienna (11), 17.08.1999

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 Nd7 7.Nh3 Ndf6 8.Bc4 Bd7 9.0-0 Bc6 10.Ng5 e3 11.Bxe3 Nd5 12.Bc1 Nge7 13.Qe1 h6 14.Ne4 0-0 15.Bd3 Ng6 16.g3 Re8 17.c4 Nde7 18.Qf2 b6 19.Bb2 Qc8 20.d5 Bd7 21.dxe6 Bxe6 22.Qd4 Nf5 23.Qc3 Rd8 24.Nd6 cxd6 25.Bxf5 Qc5+ 26.Kg2 Qe5 27.Bxg6 Qxc3 28.Bxf7+ Kxf7 29.Bxc3 Rac8 30.Bd4 Rxc4 31.c3 Rdc8 32.Rfe1 a6 33.Re3 b5 34.Rae1 Re8 35.h4 Ra4 36.Ra1 Bd7 37.Rxe8 Bxe8 38.Kf2 Bc6 39.Ke3 Ke6 40.Bxg7 0-1


Moser,E (2223) - Jurek,J (2336) [C15]
Danube op-8 Aschach (7), 30.12.1999

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Qd2 Nf6 8.Bb2 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Qe1 Qc7 11.Nh3 e3 12.Qxe3 Nd5 13.Qe4 c4 14.Re1 b5 15.Ng5 N7f6 16.Qh4 a5 17.Ne4 b4 18.Qg3 Qc6 19.Qd6 Qxd6 20.Nxd6 bxc3 21.Ba1 Ba6 22.Bxc4 Bxc4 23.Nxc4 Rab8 24.g3 a4 25.Kd1 Rfc8 26.Ne5 Ne3+ 27.Kc1 Nfd5 28.Re2 Rb7 29.Rhe1 Nf5 30.Re4 Rcb8 0-1


Lambers,G (2337) - Van den Bos,H (2200) [C15]
corr NEDch-31 NBC, 01.09.2000

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 b6 7.Nh3 Bb7 8.fxe4 Bxe4 9.Ng5 Bg6 10.Bd3 Nf6 11.0-0 Qd5 12.Be3 Bxd3 13.cxd3 Nbd7 14.Qe1 b5 15.Qg3 0-0 16.Rf2 h6 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.dxe4 Qxe4 19.Bxh6 Qg6 20.Qxc7 Nf6 21.Bf4 Nd5 22.Qa5 Qe4 23.Bd6 Rfd8 24.Bc5 a6 25.a4 Qe3 26.Raf1 f6 27.Bb4 Rdb8 28.Kh1 bxa4 29.Rb2 Qd3 30.Ra1 Ne3 31.Rba2 Rb5 32.Qc7 Qe4 33.Re1 a5 34.Ba3 Rb1 35.Bc1 a3 36.Rae2 Qd3 37.Ra2 Rab8 38.Qc6 Qc4 39.Qxc4 Nxc4 0-1


Massy,G (2365) - Boschma,B (2424) [C15]
corr NEDch-31 NBC, 01.09.2000

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Qd2 Nf6 8.Bb2 0-0 9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.fxe4 Nxe4 11.Qe1 Bc6 12.Nf3 Nd7 13.Bd3 f5 14.Rf1 Rb8 15.g4 b5 16.gxf5 exf5 17.dxc5 Qf6 18.Nd4 Ndxc5 19.Rxf5 Qh6+ 20.Kb1 Rfe8 21.c4 Bd7 22.cxb5 Nxd3 23.cxd3 Nd6 24.Re5 Qxh2 25.Rxe8+ Rxe8 26.Qc3 Qg3 27.Nc6 Qg4 28.Rc1 Re2 29.Ka1 Be8 30.Qc5 Qd7 31.Rg1 Nf5 32.Rf1 g6 33.Qe5 Rxe5 0-1


Schulze,M (2400) - Knudsen,J (2475) [C15]
CM.2001.0.00134 IECG, 04.03.2001

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 e5 7.Be3 Bf5 8.Rb1 b6 9.Ne2 exf3 10.Ng3 Be6 11.Qxf3 Bd5 12.Qh5 Nd7 13.dxe5 g6 14.Qe2 Qe7 15.Qd2 Bb7 16.Bb5 0-0-0 17.0-0 Nxe5 18.Qe2 f6 19.Ba6 Kb8 20.Bxb7 Kxb7 21.Ne4 Kb8 22.Nc5 Rd5 23.Na6+ Kb7 24.Nb4 Ra5 25.Bd4 c6 26.c4 Nh6 27.Nd3 Nf5 28.Bc3 Ra4 29.Bb4 Qe6 30.c5 Qc4 31.Qf2 Nxd3 32.cxd3 Qd5 33.cxb6 axb6 34.Rfe1 Rha8 35.Bc5 b5 36.Rbc1 Rg4 37.Rc3 h5 38.h3 Rg3 39.Re7+ Nxe7 40.Qxg3 Nf5 41.Qe1 Qe5 42.Qxe5 fxe5 43.Kf2 Rd8 44.Kf3 Rd5 45.Ke4 h4 46.Bf2 Kc7 47.Be1 Kd6 48.Bf2 c5 49.Rc2 Ng3+ 50.Bxg3 Rd4+ 51.Ke3 hxg3 52.Rb2 Kc6 53.Rc2 Rf4 54.Rb2 b4 0-1


Littlewood,J (2244) - Blackburn,J (2207) [C15]
EUch Liverpool (9), 14.09.2006

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Rb1 Nc6 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.fxe4 Qh4+ 10.Kf1 Qxe4 11.Nf3 0-0-0 12.Bd3 Qg4 13.h3 Qg3 14.Bg5 f6 15.Bh4 Qd6 16.Bf2 Nge7 17.dxc5 Qf4 18.g3 Qc7 19.Nd2 Ne5 20.Ne4 Bc6 21.Qe2 Nd5 22.Bd4 Nxd3 23.cxd3 e5 24.Qg4+ Kb8 25.Bf2 f5 26.Qxf5 Ne3+ 27.Bxe3 Rhf8 28.Qxf8 Rxf8+ 29.Ke2 Bxe4 30.dxe4 Qf7 0-1


Kislov,O (2267) - Chamitskiy,S (2323) [C15]
RGSU Masters Moskwa (13), 18.11.2006

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 Bd7 7.Qd2 Bc6 8.Qf2 Nf6 9.Bb2 Qd5 10.Qg3 Nbd7 11.Qxc7 exf3 12.Nxf3 Qe4+ 13.Kd2 Nd5 14.Qd6 Qe3+ 15.Kd1 Nxc3+ 16.Bxc3 Qxc3 17.Rb1 Bxf3+ 18.gxf3 Qxf3+ 19.Kd2 Qxh1 20.Bb5 Qg2+ 21.Ke3 Qg5+ 0-1


Vujic,M (2340) - Zlatanovic,B (2386) [C15]
Paracin GM Paracin (2), 2008

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 Nf6 7.Qd2 0-0 8.Bb2 c5 9.fxe4 Nxe4 10.Qe3 Qd5 11.c4 cxd4 12.Bxd4 Qa5+ 13.Kd1 e5 14.Qxe4 exd4 15.Bd3 g6 16.Nf3 Nc6 17.Qf4 Re8 18.Rb1 Ne5 19.Nxe5 Rxe5 20.Rf1 Be6 21.Rxb7 Re8 22.Qxd4 Bg4+ 23.Kc1 Qxa3+ 24.Qb2 Qa5 25.Rb4 Re1+ 26.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 27.Kd2 Ra1 28.c5 Ra4 29.Kc3 Qxc5+ 30.Rc4 Ra3+ 31.Kd2 Qf2+ 32.Kc1 Qe1# 0-1


Snap,C - Veal,J (2028) [C15]
Jerry Hanken Winter FIDE Open Stillwater USA (1), 13.02.2010

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 Nd7 7.fxe4 Qh4+ 8.g3 Qxe4+ 9.Qe2 Qxh1 10.Nf3 Ngf6 11.Bb2 b6 12.0-0-0 Ba6 13.Qxa6 Qxf3 14.Be2 Qe3+ 15.Kb1 0-0 16.Qb7 Qxe2 0-1