1.d4 refuted...?

The visionary starts with a clean sheet of paper, and re-imagines the world.
Malcolm Gladwell 

Email this to Carlsen before its too late.

I think this is the "Dzinzi Indian defence.

It is wrong to say that 3.c4 would be incorrect. It secures the slight white space advantage.

(Although 3.e4 is good, too. I would have played that, too.)

Same as 4.Nf3: it is another logical move.

Although allowing Black to produce a double pawn in the white camp with 5.Nc3 Bxc3+, 6.bxc3 is not everyone's taste (personally, i would have then played g3 and Bg2, and decided about the fate of the Nb1 later), that double pawn is not situated on an open file. Furthermore, White has the bishop pair, and f5 weakens the black Kingside position more: in particular it gives White a mark for a later attack with g2-g4.

A careful analysis would show that White's play AFTER 6....f5 has to be criticized, and lead to his loss.

White should play 3.e4 and not even play c4 at all.  The reason nobody plays 1...c5 in the Benoni at the upper levels is that Black gets a rotten position in Closed Benonis with no White pawn on c4.  White typically plays his Knight from g1 to f3 to d2 to c4, using c4 as a lauching pad with a4 played.

so we all can agree 1.d4 is refuted. Good, now onto refuting 1.e4 

ThrillerFan and D_for_Dj. Let us agree to disagree.

The game is badly played by white but not earlier than move 7. After 6....f5 White had the better game.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!  I'll Blast your moron a** any day and twice on Sunday with 1.d4!!

there are whole books written about 1.d4 c5. this alone puts the rigorous claim that 1....c5 would be a 'mistake', in doubt.

Hardly. I take no position on 1.d4 c5, whether it's good, bad, ugly, refuted, or sound. But whole books being written about something in chess reflects absolutely nothing about the topic. It just means someone needed a payday.

Yep. I didn't need to search a source very far : http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Sicilian-With-Repertoire-Books/dp/9548782375

Well, those are books written by soviet authors (those couldn't get much money from that, they lived from the trainer's job).

In fact, many books on Benoni have a large part on the Modern Benoni (variants with c4, Black plays e6 , and later exd5, after which white takes on d5 with his c-pawn, cxd5), AND a, usually smaller, chapter on the ('Old') Benoni which is characterized by an 'equidistributed' pawn configuration in the center. Imo, there are 3 possible structures. Evaluations below are always from the website ChessOK, Opening explorer.

(a)

Early e5. For instance: 1.d4 c5, 2.d5 e5, after which White often answers e4. This leads to  closed positions where  Black has little activity.

But also White cannot attack easily. Both sides have many different possible ways to develop their pieces . That's why I don't give one specific variant here.

(b)

Black plays e6, and exchanges on d5. 

For instance 1. d4 c5 2. d5 e6 3. e4 Nf6 4. Nc3 d6 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Be2 exd5 7. exd5  +0.33. Black has a passive, but safe position.

(c)

Black does not move his e-pawn at all, and develops his bishop to g7. As in the variants (a) and (b), he mainly opts for a safe position. His plan is to control the diagonal a1-h8, to finish his development, and only later to  attack on the queenside, moving his b-pawn, or to get some relief in the center with e7-e6. I will give one typical variant (played often!) below. 

-------------

Let's get to the two white plans.

1.d4 c5, 2.d5 with the plan e4, and without c4, has good points:

Fast development, orientation of an attack in the center, and (hopefully later) on the kingside.

But it does NOT hinder an expansion of the black army on the queenside, which is one idea of 3.c4. It also restricts the possibility of a white  attack on the queenside later, and finally, it does not (over)protect the outpost d5.

Here are  typical lines, again taken from chessOK.

First the plan without c4 and with e4. (Black develops his pieces as explained in variant (c) above).

 1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Be2 O-O 7. O-O Nbd7 8. h3 a6 9. a4 b6 10. Bf4 Qc7 11. Qd2 Re8 12. Rad1.  +0.26

White is better, but a breakthrough is not in sight .

Now compare this with just one popular line of Modern Benoni which can be reached via several move orders.

1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. c4 g6 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. e4 d6 6. h3 O-O 7. Nf3 e6 8. Bd3 exd5 9. cxd5. +0.22

The game is less symmetric than in the previous variant, and more difficult to play for BOTH sides.

THIS is the reason why the Modern Benoni is at this time more popular, than the Old Benoni: Black seeks for a counterplay in an asymmetric position, hoping that a possible white advantage would be less visible (it might anyway be there).

If you want a draw, or you will meet a weaker player, who is not familiar with positional subtlties, or can only 'swim' in open positions, full of tactical fight, then you may choose the Old Benoni.

Aren't there other such openings, developed to take out the tooth of a tiger, like the Berlin defense, or the Petrov Defense ?

The OP is 100% correct! 

A 3-minute game against a player rated under 1850 where Black chose an unusual line is absolute proof that 1.d4 is refuted! 

Thank you so much for demonstrating this compelling victory!

And for those who say that white's mistake was 3.c4, you may want to tell that to Balashov, Dautov, Potkin and Richagov. All four are players rated +2500 who have used it successfully. 3.e4 may be better, but 3.c4 is playable too. 

When I face this line, I usually defer playing the N to c3 until Black has declared where he's going to place his N on g8. It avoids some of the cheap tactics that Dzindzi's videos tout.

Thx Smyslovfan.

One may add, that opening websites give MANY games where Black has  rating over 2500 and plays 1.d4 c5.

I think this silences every superficial negative evaluation of 1....c5.

+1

Just because GMs over 2500 have palyed it doesn't make it good.

There is also a difference between a "mistake" and a "blunder".  It's a mistake to play 3.c4 as White has far better options.  It's not a blunder like say, 3.Qd4 would be (I hope everyone would agree with that assessment).

GMs have played everything sometime or another.  GMs have palyed the Englund Gambit (Erich Cohn - Aaron Nimzowitsch, Coburg 1904, case in point).  Does that make it equally respectable to the Slav Defense?  I think not!

Case in point - Let's use NICBase, which has over 1.7 Million strictly upscale games.  Closed Benoni (where White doesn't play c4).  After 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.e4 d6 (Different from the Czech Benoni in that White hasn't played c4, the Czech Benoni, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 is far more respectable), White has the excellent move 4.Nc3!  Against 4...Be7, White scores 67.7% across 218 games.  Against 4...a6, White scores 70.6% across 211 games.  Against 4...g5, White scores 65% across 123 games.  Against all other moves, White scores 66.8% across 104 games.  The "norm" for White is 54% (56% if you only count 1.d4 games).  How can you possibly want to play this?

-1

I'm the King's Indian Slayer!  Classical, Gligoric, Saemisch, Fianchetto are all wins for White.  Four Pawns is a Draw.  The rest lose.

doubt it, wanna play 4 fun :)

On one hand you say that we should not believe in authorities. On the other hand you argue now again with data bases and winning percentages, that is, again with authorities. Let me also point out that many (most) of those games are played on level that is significantly lower than 2500.

You have not indicated at all why my evaluation of the position could flaw.  Moreover, your evaluation was based exclusively on short-term merits of e4 against c4. The position is of closed character after 2.d5. Therefore  a fast development is not  as urgent as you suggest, a fierce fight will not happen soon. One must therefore also think about readiness of his own pieces in the middle game.