its a well known study from giochino greco, it was NEVER a line since as far as im aware, the refutation of g6 isntead of g6 is also very well known. i knew it when i was a scholastic player.
No sir, it used to be considered like a critical variation of the Owen Dfense, indeed refuted for high level players.
For what I know, the fact your guy studied the line doesn't make it not a line.
Anyhow, I don't remember if I've find that line in a book or in a magazine back then, but I do remember well, reading the comment "and White has a winning attack", it seemed rather unclear to me, and I took to myself the bet Black could prevail with its extra exchange if White did not make it to perform efficiently enough the said attack.
And indeed I've win games, again, versus players up to Elo 1920 in classsical, when I was still unrated and 1500 Rapid.
Besides, I do remmber well talking about that line with other club competitiors, and no one ever said "oh, but that's not a line".
So, whatever it is to you now, what I said is what is has been to me when I played it back around 1990.
Here the main/critical line of it, back in the days:
this isnt a critical line, this is a composition , virtually no one plays 3....f5 here since the refutation is well known
If you read properly, I said what it used to be, back then, not what it is now.
And what you call a "refutation" is barely accessible as such for players under 2000, or was so. I've win enough games as Black out of that line in classical so I can tell.
its a well known study from giochino greco, it was NEVER a line since as far as im aware, the refutation of g6 isntead of nf6 is also very well known. i knew it when i was a scholastic player.