kylemeister wrote on 06/06/12 at 02:38:28:

Definitely. 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qf6 4.c3 a6 5.Ba4 d6 6.d4 Bd7 7.d5 Nb8 8.Qb3? b5! 9.c4 and now why not 9.bxa4?

Hi all!
It occured to me as the first player in a correspondence game of mine:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qf6 
Well, not too much written about it. White has three distinctive ways to fight against this offbeat try. The first one - simply 4.0-0?! and wait for next black strikes 4...Bc5, 4...a6 or even 4...Nd4. Passive...and not to my taste. Maybe that's what black needs. The second - 4.Nc3!? is maybe what black expects. Then 4...Nge7 seems almost obligatory and white enters into the black scheme - 5.d3 h6 6.0-0 a6 (6...d6 or even 6...g5 ). So, I chose the third one - 4.c3! and expected 4...Bc5. Then I was to choose between 5.d4 (P.Svidler-A.Stefanova 2012), 5.d3 (J.Timman-I.Sokolov 2002) or 5.0-0 (J.Ehlvest-I.Sokolov 2002). So far so good!.. But my opponent played 4...a6 (the second best move, which can be useful for black). 5.Ba4 - still waiting for 5...Bc5. I even found some analyses over the Internet, but not too much...so I was determined to work hard to achieve my += as a first player. Anyway, but 5...d6 6.d4 Bd7 (consistent, now 7...0-0-0 and black can think for a future kingside attack) left me with only one game left in my database: I.Boleslavsky-N.Gusev 1954 (by transposition). Here Boleslavsky went for 7.Be3 (and won) - a good developping move, but not for a correspondence game. If I was to win I should have found another (more convincing) way. And started to analyse (and it took me a long time):

Here above is my analysis. (Not copyrighted!  ) So feel free to use it as you wish! 
Then I played 7.d5! (more than 10 days after 6...Bd7) and my opponent, obviously after some analyzing on his part, got scared and played 7...Nce7?! which brought me to nowhere.. Except to my +/- (plus above minus) after 8.Bxd7+ Kxd7 as a first player.
That's it!