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

I clearly should learn the Petroff and/or the Berlin though. It would be a great addition to my rather simple repertoire of responses to 1.e4.

But let's face it, I'm right-handed and a little lazy, so I can only really muster the strength to move a pawn one square.

So that would be the Caro right?

That's my main 1. e4 defense as well. It has served me well and I've never had better results trying anything else.

It doesn't seem to promise much at the super-gm level. I think Karpov used it mainly as a drawing weapon for black and would use his games with white for trying to win. At my level though it's plenty dynamic and leads to positions that have enough imbalances to play for a win.

The Hinrichsen Gambit looks pretty dubious!

1. e4, e5

2. f4?!, d5!

3. d4?!

I don't know that that is always the case. Players like Fischer and Kasparov would often play very dynamically and aggressively with black and go for more than equality.

I checked to see if this was something you named after yourself, but came away disappointed. :-(

Can you elaborate on "depressing"?

That's a generalization. GMs sometimes play for a draw as White too but it depends on the tournament/match situation, the opponent, and subjective factors.

Neither 1. e3 or 1. d3 are blatantly bad moves, and I don't believe anyone reasonable claims that they are readily refutable, just maybe they don't give the White an opening advantage with correct play. Im okay with that, but I am not okay with openings that should leave me worse as White.

Unless it is blitz I much prefer my opponent to play 1. e3 or 1. d3 instead of a "normal" opening move. Sure it gets me out of book, but it usually doesn't pressure me much either and simple moves are usually sufficient for easy equality.

Which do you suppose is the worst possible defence for black: 1.d4 g5?!, 1.e4 f5?! or 1.e4 b5?! ?

Hmm.......I'd probably say 1. f5?!.  I like the Duras Gambit, but I don't play it often.  Besides, I'm a mainly positional player, so I don't play any gambits that often other than Queen's Gambit.

I would rather play as white 1.e4 b5?, but if I had to put money on which does the worst in a GM super tournament or a Computer super tournament, it would be on 1.e4 f5?

Isn't that the Fred?

This site's game explorer has 1. e4, f5?! listed as the "Duras Gambit".  It's probably got other names, like the Grob is also called the Spike.

To try to answer the original question, I don't suppose any first move is strictly speaking refuted because you can't do much too much wrong on move 1. After all you can only move pawns or Knights at move 1 and at worst you can lose a pawn, or create a weakness. You would have to wait until move 2 or 3 to do something that clearly loses the game.

"Decisive advantage" doesn't mean immediate forced mate, though -- it means that one side has such a significant advantage that it will lead to a win even against perfect play.  There's a reason e4 b5 is the only black response to e4 that doesn't have even a single game in Game Explorer.

Losing a pawn with no compensation is horrible in an opening, and would definitely be considered a refutation. Gambits are typically called "refuted" when it is proved that the initiative doesn't last into the midgame, and these rarely sacrifice more than a pawn. So openings like 1. e4 f5?? can be considered refuted.

I don't think any first moves for white can be considered refuted, although as mentioned 1. f3? is almost certainly pretty bad.

Hmm, surprisingly, 1 ... b5 is my second most played move against 1 e4, and the results aren't bad :)

1...e5	610	43.4% 51.5%
1...b5	15	46.7% 53.3%
1...Nc6	9	33.3% 66.7%
1...c5	3	66.7% 33.3%
1...f6	2	50% 50%
1...Nf6	2	50% 50%
1...e6	1	oldbill - rooperi (2009)