a good openig in developing bishops

White is also down two pawns, and it's black's turn to play and develop another piece.

It's good if black is so lazy that he doesn't know the refutation on move 3:

equality does not equal refutation.  

Cool

If giving black equality or worse after only 3 moves with white is not a refutation then I do not know what is in the opening. With that you could argue that 1. a4 is not refuted. Quite silly.

i agree with you. you do not know.

Maybe you should look up the word "refuted". Things might clear up.

1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>

i know what it means. please point out where your "equality equals refutation" point is exactly in this definition.

perhaps it would help if you looked up the definition of refute.

EDIT: for an opening to reach equality for black does not "prove wrong" the opening, nor does it show it to be "false or erroneous", nor does it "deny the truth or accuracy" of the opening.

"Black is equal if not more" Maybe you should read the comments in the line in my first post.

Besides, should we start defining chess vocabulary like "refuted" at a patzers level? Sure no opening is really refuted at that level but at GM level this opening would be called refuted on move 3. You don't need to lose material but simply ending up in a crummy position or giving away the first move advantage on move 3 is enough to be called a refutation.

EDIT: re:edit. GMs would call a white opening refuted if it lets black equalize after 3 moves. Really, they would.

ah, okay i completely understand you now. you're going by your own personal defintion of "refute". well that solves everything because i was using the standard acccepted defintion, not your personal one. next time you speak in your own personal language, don't get upset if someone doesn't understand you.

After 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3d5, the Black is not equal, and certainly not better.

This appears to be a similar position to some lines of the Scandinavian gambit, which the last time I checked wasn't considered to be a refutation of 1. e4.

As far as the OP is concerned, his opening choice is a great one and he should continue to play it. Now you two stop quoting each other's old posts! - it looks ridiculous.

hey i didn't mind the OP's opening. i posted the very similiar scotch opening and said i enjoyed it. i was simply pointing out that an opening that black can equalize in does not make that opening refuted.

No that is not what you said. You are saying that an opening is not refuted eventhough black gets equality after 3 moves.

Also, I am not upset that you patzers speak your own language and do not understand what I am saying: that an opening is quite refuted if you hand over equality after 3 moves.

how about we agree to disagree. you're not worth my time, sorry.

I realize that I am not supposed to argue with a Super Grandmaster who sometimes gets his blitz and standard ratings above 1500 in Live Chess, however you confuse the Black having a reasonable try to play for equality on move 3 and the Black obtaining equality at move 3.  

I'm no expert on the opening, but I'll throw in my two cents: After 3...d5, Black indeed does stand quite well in comparison with many other defenses. You can't really say it's a refutation of that opening (I believe it's called the Danish Gambit, or do I have that confused with something else?) although I believe that it is widely regarded at the higher levels (as AtahanT mentioned) that 3...d5 pretty much takes the sting out of anything White may have originally planned (hence the somewhat low popularity).

I think the main reason you guys are arguing is from this one word: refuted. Yes, in plain English, it means that something is proven wrong completely. However, in chess, few openings can be "refuted" in that sense. In fact, what is refuted or not depends on who's talking (We might agree that the Damiano Defense is refuted, but can we consider something like the Solkosky (1.b4) refuted?). Also keep in mind that there was a controversy over Fischer's "A Bust to the King's Gambit" back in the day, when he claimed that the King's Gambit was refuted. Even today, many people are probably split on whether it is really a reasonable opening or not (I believe some engines even consider the KG an inaccuracy!).

on the whole refuted thing, black has an equal position after 1.e4 e5, that doesn't mean 1. e4 is refuted. In chess terms I think for an opening to be refuted, the position has to be lost for one side white or black.