Hello all! I have a quick question regarding a variation to Evan's Gambit, to be specific it is a variation by Chigorin. These moves are from 'Modern Chess Openings MC0-13'. The moves go as follows....
1)E4 E5 2)Nf3 Nc6 3)Bc4 Bc5 4)b4 Bxb4 5)c3 Ba5 6)0-0 Nf6 7)d4 Nxe4 8)Nxe5 0-0 9)Ba3 d6 10)Nxc6 bxc6 11)Qa4 Qg5.
From here I have a few questions. After 11)...Qg5 12)Qxc6 what would be an appropriate response for black? There is a fork on the Rook and A1 and the knight on E4. Which is why I did not understand the significance of 11)..Qg5. Ideas?

I'm somewhat familiar with the Evans, but not so much with Qg5.

Well, 11. ... Qg5 threatens the old 1-2 queen pin. The basic idea is 12. ... Bh3 threatening mate, forcing 13. g3 Bxf1 which weakens the king position and wins an exchange.
Personally I feel like 12. Bc1 Qh5 13. Be3 would be just a bit safer, but anyway..

White plays 12. Qxc6. Black wanted to play Bh3 and grab the exchange, if Bh3 now, the rook is protected but not the knight. So, black needs to be doing something else with the bishop to protect both pieces and 12. ... Bf5 should do just that.
Black's material is rather loose at white's 13th move. Here's a bit of puzzle for you, white to play and win a pawn.



**Disclaimer: It wins a pawn, but it also adds about a pawn's worth of trouble for white. It's not necessarily the best move **

'Solution' below

Wow! I can't believe I didn't see Bf5, I'm glad I put it forth before experienced players before I tried that in a game. @.@ But I like the puzzle very much and I have copied it down to show it to a few friends of mine. Also I have another question, at the suggestion of other users on this forum I've started with the Italian opening and as you can see I've been looking into some 'simple' variations. I also know that studying games by professional and reputable players is a good idea, but would looking at games where say Paul Morphy used the Italian game be a good idea? I know for his time his playing was superb, but could it be a bad thing to look at them and try to implement? I'm sure that modern theory and approach would probably have a high degree of an edge against Romantic period chess. D:

Mmmh.. well, you need to be very critical about these things, but that goes for games from more 'modern' times as well. It helps to see the basic ideas without all the fuss, finesse and refinement added decades later. But by all means, don't stop with the old masters, go forward in time and just kind of see the layers added since.
The advantage of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 is that it generally makes sense. You can do just fine playing principled chess. If you miss something, it's likely you'll get hit in the nose by it and you'll have something you can put your finger on when analyzing. Morphy was completely dominant in his time. His games have since been analyzed many times and many flaws have been found, dubious opening choices (what to think of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5?) and questionable sacrifices. Morphy was miles ahead of the whole world tactically..
Since tactics will help you a whole lot more than modern opening subtleties, I wouldn't give it much thought.

Fortunately though, the Italian is quite ancient and has been 'brought back to life' several times. Less fortunately, black might not want to go there and play something like the Two Knights (3. ... Nf6) or the Hungarian (3. ... Be7).