Has any 1st move, for white or black ever been refuted?

That's not the definiton GM's use...

I've started another thread on this very topic...please post it there if you like.

What often seems to happen is that a line will be popular for years with roughly equal results.  Then one day one master finds a refutation, and everyone familiar with that game stops playing the line.  If you only look at the database statistics, the line looks viable, perhaps even favourable.  It only takes one game to bust a once popular line.

You make a good point and one I hadn't really considered.

Still though there seem to be cases where players are willing to play known refuted lines (like Damiano's Defense) and take a loss. Why this is I can only conjecture - maybe they're already out of prize contention and are just goofing? You'd think they would still value their rating enough to not do so, but it seems to happen anyway. So I really wouldn't expect a first move by white to disappear completely just because it was refuted in one game. Like Damiano's Defense, I'd expect it to be represented in the database to the extent that it would drop the move's scoring percentage to an abysmal level.

At lower levels, sure people may continue to play opening moves known to be weak, but at lower levels, probably mistakes in the middle or endgames are more important than the openings people choose.  If you drill down to specific games though, you will notice that well-prepared GMs have stopped playing lines that amateurs still seem to score points with.  In general, my impression is that win/loss percentages are often quite deceiving as to what lines are strong or weak.  A huge number of games are decided because one side knows the line chosen better than their opponent, and often this is more important than the actual soundness of the line.

Like I said, you make a good general point. What I was saying is that variations which occur very early on in the game that are known to be garbage (like Damiano's Defense) still, almost inconceivably, get played by master level players on occasions and their refutations are reflected in low database scoring percentages. I would expect the same to be true of a white first move and that any first move by white that was truly refuted (unless it was so only recently) would also have a very low scoring percentage. Since this isn't the case, I'd consider the database statistics a rough indicator that no refutation is known for any first move by white.

1.e4 Na6! seems to score really well for black in different online databases of master games.  Perhaps it is the refutation of 1.e4?!

You never know

What is "really well" btw?

In chess.com's Game Explorer - Master games, 1.e4 Na6 chalks up 80% wins for black.  I always wondered what the refutation was for 1.e4.

these 'databases' you keep bangin' on about reflect precious little of any true value - they include games where one or other has lost on time or resigned cos was ill or whatever - try to reduce this game to percentages and produce some kind of 'formula' and one day you'll wake up in a padded cell

To rigamagician and smileative: Alright you guys win... But I never intended to argue that the scoring percentage for a move in in the database is the final word on the subject - I mean for any statistic to be valid the data has to be both relevant and statistically significant right? All I was saying is that I saw no particular reason to summarily reject the scoring percentages for white's first moves as a rough indicator of their viability.

e4 - probably has been somewhat refuted at super GM level by the Berlin and the Petroff

A couple of drawing openings "refute" 1 e4?

Well name a system after 1. e4 e5, that avoids the Petroff, and is sound for an advantage at super GM level. (Kasparov said that only the scotch and Ruy Lopez give white any advantage)

Hence why at super GM level e4 is played quite a lot less than d4.

Refute is the wrong word. But you know what is meant, right?

I do, but even in a loose sense I don't think "refuted" should be used.

In that case, may I suggest the improvement of addressing both the content and the word choice?

I'm not quite sure how it should be worded, to be honest. There's a right way, I just don't know what it is. He could just say some defences to 1 e4 have been giving white a tough time proving an advantage to. These days tons of draws happen with super gm's anyway, so there should still be nothing wrong with 1 e4.

Yes I think that's it. One could even say that at the GM level something for black which proves equality "refutes" whatever TN that the white player had. It wouldn't go so far back as 1.e4, but it could certainly be a sub-line in the Marshall.

For me, "refutation" implies something stronger than "unsound". But hey, I bet that they don't see things that way.