a good openig in developing bishops

Exactly. Would anyone actually play the danish gambit if they were faced with 3....d5 EVERY single time they played it? No. That is called a refutation of an opening in the chess world.

No, black has not equalized after 1.e4 e5 because he is a whole tempo down. To be equalized in the opening does not mean that a symmetrical positions is enough. Your total positional standing must be equalized, so at some point you need end up with a slightly better position then white (if you disregard whos turn it is) to compensate for his extra move or unclearer positions where knowing someones move and thereby someones intention is compensation enough to be equal.

wow...wow.

black equality + AtahanT doesn't like it = refuted opening.

it's crystal clear. i now know that i was wrong the whole time. thanks for the enlightenment. i no longer need to track this thread.

Would you say that this opening is not refuted eventhough no one would play it if they faced 3. ...d5 every single time? Don't be silly.

In this case, I know Alekhine would agree with AtahanT, read his books, each and everytime a white opening choice, variation or idea leads to easy equality for the defending side, he calls it refuted.

On topic: The danish leads to some practical chances, especially under a certain level, eventually though, it get's boring trying to fight an uphill battle with white.

AtahanT, do you mean if Black equalizes,then that opening is refuted by Black and if he cannot equalize then it is refuted by White? I used to think only those openings are played that give equal chances to both players.

Technically we can be almost certain that Black has equality on move 1 since chess is almost certainly a draw.

Run for your life AtahanT, the patzers have taken over.

You're the second person in 3 days who's called me that on this site. Instead of insulting, why can't people just stick to the discussion?

That is beside the point. The point is that letting black equalize after 3 moves and ending up in a position that white players would not play if they ended up in it every single time they played the danish gambit is easily called a refutation of an opening idea.

Not necessarily, a position can be better for a player, even though the advantage isn't necessarily enough to force a win.

That is not really true. One side can have an advantage but it may not be enough for a win. Just because the game of chess might be a draw with perfect play does not mean black has equality on move one. False logic there.

True. I meant that presuming perfect play from both sides Black has equality on move 1, but on a human level I'm wrong clearly.

Instead of taking it personally, why can't people just go by the actual meaning of chess terms and not make up new uses for them?

Because sometimes people say stupid things. It doesn't mean they need to be immediately insulted.

westy1: the idea that chess is drawn with perfect play is just a hypothesis.  It's a logical one, and a likely one, but the game itself hasn't yet been solved, so there's no empirical evidence to prove the matter one way or another.  Personally, I think that that the idea will most likely be proven true someday, but until the game has been absolutely solved one way or another, one cannot know with any certainty the outcome of the perfectly played chess game.

As for the "equality on move one", you have extremely complicated lines in openings such as the Ruy Lopez, King's Indian, Sicilian that, at a grandmaster level, are still being debated by theory twenty/twenty five moves deep without any clear answer either way.  With all of these factors in mind, I don't think you can objectively make such a claim.  It's an assumption that cannot yet be backed by any real amount of evidence.

See the first part of my post, the stuff about not taking it personally. If being called one in a group of patzers is such an insult to you, then you'd better stay away from the internet or people in general.

The argument rages on... :(

Perhaps it would be better if we separated refutations into 2 categories?

Physical Refutation - A refutation of something that is complete with no doubts. For example, 1.f3 followed by 2.g4 is refuted in this fashion because White is guaranteed to be lost if he plays these moves.

Ideological Refutation - A refutation which is not complete, but where the position for one side is uncomfortable enough for one side that they avoid the position completely. I'm guessing that this is where the controversy lies. No one can prove that Black will win with perfect play against something like the Grob, but the position that usually results isn't as good as one that White might normally be able to achieve according to current theory.

I think that the Danish is ideologically refuted, because it is avoided by players at the higher levels for reasons related to the resulting position. That is not to say that the Danish is unplayable, because especially at the amateur levels, it can be quite a dangerous opening. Who knows? Maybe a few years from now, someone might find a counter to 3...d5 that makes the Danish worth playing to GMs again. Opening theory trends work this way. In the Classical days of chess for example, every opening that was not based off of 1.e4 e5 was considered refuted. Today, we know that there are many other viable options. Currently, the same can be said of the Danish, but in the future there is a good chance that such an opening can make a serious comeback.

As for the "patzers" argument, I don't see what it's about. First of all, calling someone a patzer seems foolish to me and hypocritical. In the eyes of the greatest chess players, we're all patzers. Secondly, there's really no point in taking offense to such a weak attempt at an insult; you might as well take offense to being called a Monkey Head or something.

I don't stay away from people and I rarely get insulted like that. And even though I will meet the occasional person like you on the internet who finds it ok to do it, that doesn't make it right. Why call anyone a patzer? 

How do you know I'm taking offense? I was just pointing out that there's no need to randomly try to insult people (however weak the attempt).