Interesting game and you had a strong opponent; will definitely avoid playing him!
I've played this gambit, but haven't tried 7.Qb3...not sure I like the look of it, I'd castle at that point.
13.Ba3 looks better than Nc3 and you may have played d6 too soon on move 19...a Rook on the d or e file first may have been the way forward.
As instructed, we won't mention 22.Qe4 
13.Nc3 is natural, but not a very good move. White should prevent black completing his development smoothly by 13.Ba3 (also playable is 13.a4 c6 14.Ba3, when it's rather difficult to decide which side has gained from these moves' insertion- probably Black) 13...Qe6 (or 13...d5!?) 14.Qc1! with mutual chances.
How about 22. Bc1 ! 
Thanks for replying guys, these mostly concur with my own conclusions! 7.Qb3 is a fairly standard move, 7.0-0 seems more common but the two usually transpose anyway, and 7.Qb3 does reduce Black's possible replies a little. I can't remember who but there was a strong player who said he considered it more accurate.
Played 13.Nc3 because I saw that all the games up to this point had included 13.Ba3, and whilst I thought that was good, I wanted to try something different! I also thought it was a natural development of the knight heading to f4, and to control d5 making Qe6 unattractive. I guess next time I will try the 13.Ba3 Qe6 14.Qc1 idea!
Also I did regret playing d5 before bringing my rooks out. I think I was overly worried about Qe6, when actually this isn't really such a big deal.
Lauri, 22.Bc1 was the first move that sprung to mind, and was definitely one of the main moves I looked at, but Black always seemed to wriggle out of trouble in my analysis. So, I decided to try Qe4 not noticing the major flaw that it obviously had!
"I can't remember who but there was a strong player who said he considered it more accurate."
Nigel Short? He certainly played it a bit.
7.0-0 and 7.Qb3 do NOT transpose to each other.
7.Qb3 (Short's patent) is just about the only adequate move in that particular position.
I noticed Marin said that 7. Qb3 was probably the variation in the book where he found it hardest to suggest moves for the black side.
The statistics from chess.com database aren't very encouraging for 7.Qb3.
In 19 games? Since when did those stats mean anything anyway? Have you checked who the stronger player was, why the games were lost, if white played outdated moves where improvements have been found?
There are only two Nigel Short games in the chess.com database from that position and he played 7.Qb3 in one.
In 19 games? Since when did those stats mean anything anyway? Have you checked who the stronger player was, why the games were lost, if white played outdated moves where improvements have been found?
Easy tiger, I was posting facts, not drawing any conclusions; I'm here to learn and was hoping that IM pfren will expand on his comment that
"7.Qb3 (Short's patent) is just about the only adequate move in that particular position."
BTW, I have 194 games, where it scores 56.9%.
Short I found 4, Piket 2001, Nielsen 2003, Gupta 2006, Kasparov 2011, and his only half point was against Nielsen, he lost the others.
I have no less than 279 games with 7.Qb3. Short was white in 4 of them, most recent one in his recent blitz games with Kasparov. The game itself isn't worth analysing, many errors from both sides.
Very interesting game. Thanks for sharing. I believe IM Jacek Shopa also suggests 7.O-O in his Chess.com video on the Evan's Gambit.
0-0 looks better, I haven't tried out Qb3 yet, but I don't really like it.
It's better to castle and use the e-file rather than make a quick threat against f7.
You are going to play Qb3 anyways, so why rush it?
You are going to play Qb3 anyways, so why rush it?
To prevent Nge7 of course, this is a no-brainer. If white allows such stuff, then he doesn't have much of anything.
Here is one I played (last year) as white with 7. O-O
It was a 19.5 move miniature. I'm sure I made plenty of mistakes, haven't analyzed it or anything, but maybe it could spark some ideas.
So Short's "patent" is based on 3 games only, (ignoring the 2011 blitz game)
So Short's "patent" is based on 3 games only, (ignoring the 2011 blitz game)
Ignoring databases for a moment, what are the reasons for 0-0 being better? Given that you can castle next move, and 7.Qb3 cuts out some possible responses for Black (including an immediate Nge7, although that didn't stop a 1600 playing it against me in a recent tournament lol!)
This one was an Evans Gambit where my pressure just seemed to run out of steam. I think I had a good position at some stage - can anyone suggest any improvements? Other than the obvious mistake 22.Qe4 - I think my position is already slightly worse there anyway.