2.Qh5 refuted?

Has 2.Qh5 ever been refuted by any respected chess author? Just curious.

I am aware of Nakamura's track record when using this opening and it is terrible.

Pretty easy to refute... you just block any checkmate attempts and then develop your pieces with tempo on the queen.

Déjà vu, anyone?

Is the word refutation to strong of a word to describe the move 2.Qh5?  Where would you place this move in the spectrum from inaccuracy, mistake to blunder?

I doubt that Nakamura would bother playing this move if it were known to be a blunder.

Not a helpful response.

I suggest reading the humorous thread on chess as fertilizer for tonight's reading. This discussion is not funny.

I do know that 2.Qh5 was discussed recently in another thread. My question is different. Again, has any chess author refuted the line 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, i.e. John Nunn or Nick de Firmian? That's what I am curious about.

2 nc6 refuted

Ahh, you're right. I apologize. I didn't read it carefully enough.

Thank you.

I found this continuation of interest in my online chessbase database.

It's cool. I could have been a bit more polite. I can get grumpy after working with school children all day. 

You guys help to keep me sane.

I didn't think you were rude. I thought you were pretty patient with me, actually. 

Yay for teaching!

I play the line, but only in blitz so far. Nakamura plays it against GMs. I would probably play it except that I rarely play 1.e4 in serious tournament games. 1.d4 is superior.

I really started liking this (e4.e5...Qh5) gonna try it :P

You play 2.Qh5!? Good luck when I follow with 2...Nf6!? ;) I'll be down a pawn, but have the lead in development. Now that is something Black should never get to enjoy after the first few moves.

The Kiddie Countergambit

Seriously, what information/stat is required to place a certain opening on the refutation pile or line of refuse? 

Yeah the opening is just weak. The best description I've heard of it is something like:  "...with best play after 6 or 7 moves white is only slightly inferior."  To me that almost qualifies as "refuted".  

Regarding teaching, I just found out that my entire middle school band and jazz band has been cancelled.  Tough to be a music teacher in public schools right now.  Thank goodness for healthy private teaching...

After 1 e4 e5 does White have a winning move? Probably not, with best play by both sides it's a likely draw.

After 2 Qh5 does Black have a winning move? Probably not, with best play by both sides it's a likely draw.

So, not refuted, it preserves the status quo... Qh5 is only one of many drawing continuations.

Well okay, so let's be clear.  At this point the thread is really about: "what's the definition of refuted?".   To me this is an interesting philosophical question but perhaps not helpful to the average chess player.   As I said before White, having the advantage of the first move, being only slightly inferior after a few moves may not meet some text book definition of "refuted", but it's close enough for me.  That said, I play plenty of, objectively speaking, inferior and probably refuted gambit lines when playing life chess or speed chess otb.  You wouldn't catch me playing 2.qh5 in a game where there was anything at stake like $$ or rating points.

AFAIK white loses at least one tempo because the Queen cannot stay in h5 for too long, but it's not the end of the world considering that black starts with one tempo less to begin with

I would say a move that scores less than 50% for white and at move 2 gives black a choice of 4 replies that all score better than 60% for black is "refuted" ! These are the stats on 2 Qh5 I get from chess assistant.....

@ polydiatonic - Ouch! The entire middle school band and jazz band have been cancelled. That's terrible. It's more common to hear of elementary programs falling under the axe. I'm very lucky to still be hanging in there. The elementary program in the next city was cut and we were able to hire one of the music teachers. Times are tough.

@ Reb - I've seen the word refuted several times in my chess books regarding opening lines, but have not seen an author refute 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5. However, the way you put it, the word refuted works for 2.Qh5.

no refutation, but very inferior for white.