No. None of the known "sound" openings has been refuted. Rather the opposite: A few openings which were considered as dubious have been revived.
But of course this has no significance for practical play. There there are other more important factors that decide the playability of opening ABC.
No. None of the known "sound" openings has been refuted. Rather the opposite: A few openings which were considered as dubious have been revived.
But of course this has no significance for practical play. There there are other more important factors that decide the playability of opening ABC.
Can you name some? Not looking to argue, just curious.
This refutation is known as the Fischer Defence. It is not actually taken seriously or played by today's grandmasters. The original story behind this line is that Fischer and Spassky were once playing a tournament and Spassky (a well-known King's Gambit practitioner) beat Fischer using the KG, winning first place. Fischer became so angry with himself that he tried developing a refutation. This article is not actually from 2015 but was originally written in 1961, long before engine analysis became available.
No. None of the known "sound" openings has been refuted. Rather the opposite: A few openings which were considered as dubious have been revived.
But of course this has no significance for practical play. There there are other more important factors that decide the playability of opening ABC.
Can you name some? Not looking to argue, just curious.
I think the 3. ... Qa5 Scandinavian might be an example. The Scandi has never been treated with much respect and doesn't get played much but in many lines, Black has a very playable position and engines don't really see all that much wrong with it.
Fischer did that being frustrated after losing to Spassky with the King's Gambit. His analysis is almost irrelevant today.
Actually Black needs to be a bit careful after 4.d4 g5 5.g3!, as white's play is rather easy.
No. None of the known "sound" openings has been refuted. Rather the opposite: A few openings which were considered as dubious have been revived.
But of course this has no significance for practical play. There there are other more important factors that decide the playability of opening ABC.
Can you name some? Not looking to argue, just curious.
I think the 3. ... Qa5 Scandinavian might be an example. The Scandi has never been treated with much respect and doesn't get played much but in many lines, Black has a very playable position and engines don't really see all that much wrong with it.
Thanks.
The King's Gambit has not been refuted. It's very interesting to watch strong engines play it against each other. Top level grandmasters don't play it in classical (mainly because it's a very risky opening and they usually want to play it safe (i.e. be able to walk away with a draw in the worst case scenario)), but it does show up in faster time controls. GM Ian Nepomniachtchi has even released a Chessable course where he has used an engine to find some new ideas in this opening.
Why are you defending the KG when you don’t even play it?
Do you spy on everyone's opening preferences?
I kinda get the feeling that not everyone in this thread defines "refuted" the same way ...
@29
refute = to prove to be false by argument or evidence (Webster)
@26
@31
6.gxf4 is already a mistake. The right move is 6.Nc3, transposing to a KG Quaade tabiya which has been played hundreds of times (5.Nc3 Bg7 6.g3!).
The 5.g3 move order gives Black less options.
This refutation is known as the Fischer Defence. It is not actually taken seriously or played by today's grandmasters. The original story behind this line is that Fischer and Spassky were once playing a tournament and Spassky (a well-known King's Gambit practitioner) beat Fischer using the KG, winning first place. Fischer became so angry with himself that he tried developing a refutation. This article is not actually from 2015 but was originally written in 1961, long before engine analysis became available.
But you cannot claim it as a refutation to the Kings Gambit. Even if you could prove a forced win after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6, which I highly doubt you can as you have never proven such capabilities before and at least half of what you say is outright wrong, that does nothing to claim the Kings Gambit being refuted, it would only refute 3.Nf3. You've still got 3.Bc4 and 3.Nc3 to deal with!
The Kings Gambit is crap and highly dubious, but you cannot claim refuted until you. An prove it! Same goes for other dubious openings like the Latvian Gambit, the Fajarowicz, the Budapest, the Alekine, the Scandinavian, the Elephant Gambit, 5...Nxd5? In the two knights defense, etc.
@29
refute = to prove to be false by argument or evidence (Webster)
One game that Black wins is not proof.
A lot of evidence is circumstantial, which can be thrown out, just like in a court room!
It would be like saying that 1...e5 (Black's best response) is refuted against 1.b4 because of one game where I smashed my opponent in 17 moves this past weekend over the board. That would be one of the dumbest things you can possibly say.
In the laws of statistics, you do not have a valid sample size until you have at least 30. Do a search in your database for the position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6, nothing else. No year range, no specific results, no rating minimums or maximums, nothing but that position.
Now, take your results, and find me 30 consecutive games where the result is 0-1. I would bet good money that there are not 30 consecutive 0-1's in that list! We are talking things like Megabase, not skewed databases that come with a video on beating the Kings Gambit.
I kinda get the feeling that not everyone in this thread defines "refuted" the same way ...
I would personally define "refuted" in Chess as follows:
By my criteria, I do not consider the King's Gambit to be refuted as that opening is such a mess, however I do believe that certain simpler openings like the Colorado Gambit can be refuted under these conditions.
This refutation is known as the Fischer Defence. It is not actually taken seriously or played by today's grandmasters. The original story behind this line is that Fischer and Spassky were once playing a tournament and Spassky (a well-known King's Gambit practitioner) beat Fischer using the KG, winning first place. Fischer became so angry with himself that he tried developing a refutation. This article is not actually from 2015 but was originally written in 1961, long before engine analysis became available.
But you cannot claim it as a refutation to the Kings Gambit. Even if you could prove a forced win after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6, which I highly doubt you can as you have never proven such capabilities before and at least half of what you say is outright wrong, that does nothing to claim the Kings Gambit being refuted, it would only refute 3.Nf3. You've still got 3.Bc4 and 3.Nc3 to deal with!
The Kings Gambit is crap and highly dubious, but you cannot claim refuted until you. An prove it! Same goes for other dubious openings like the Latvian Gambit, the Fajarowicz, the Budapest, the Alekine, the Scandinavian, the Elephant Gambit, 5...Nxd5? In the two knights defense, etc.
I think that you are reading my comment wrong. I do not claim that the King's Gambit is refuted, rather I was explaining to another commenter that the Fischer Defence is not considered a good refutation of the King's Gambit.
I kinda get the feeling that not everyone in this thread defines "refuted" the same way ...
I would personally define "refuted" in Chess as follows:
By my criteria, I do not consider the King's Gambit to be refuted as that opening is such a mess, however I do believe that certain simpler openings like the Colorado Gambit can be refuted under these conditions.
+2 is a very high bar. For most positions, 1.5+ is plenty enough.
the problem of definition always plagues talk of refutation, i agree some people have very narrow (and if you ask me dumb) notions of refutation. Some people argue that any white opening thats even and not a clear slight advantage is refuted (like the word suboptimal doesnt exist).
but the purist definition of forced loss (or clearly forced loss despite being beyond calculating horizon) is too narrow and would only apply to mostly gambits and very dubious stuff, almost all from black.
Here is my pragmatic definition of it:
"A refuted opening is one where there is either a Forced loss down the road OR the path to a draw is long arduous,, unclear and unpleasant. "
in practice this means among two reasonably strong opponents , player 1 will never play refuted opening X agaisnt player 2 if player 1 knows player 2 knows refutation of X. if they are unbiased
(i add the last part, because there is a player on lichess i have played over 40 times in 15 10 , that has played the sniper 1.e4 g6 2.d4 bg7 3.nc3 c5 10 times agaisnt me , and i show him that all 3 lines after 4.dxc5! practically lead to a refutation, our record is 9.5-0.5 and he still keeps trying to play it agaisnt me. I guess that one draw gave him hope. my memory isnt perfect)
Sometimes, some daring players purposely play refuted lines sparingly knowing the odds their opponent will know that specific refuting line is slim to none. I recently recall seeing a rapport game with the 3.nc3 variation of the king's gambit agaisnt a GM where the GM played the refuting line accurately until like move 14, then blew the next move, and that gave enough room for a comeback and Rapport won.Under my definition, its still a refuted line, Even Rapport isnt crazy enough to do an encore agaisnt the re-booked traumatized opponent.
@39
"+2 is a very high bar. For most positions, 1.5+ is plenty enough."
++ GM Larry Kaufman considered +0.7 a win.
The logic is that 1 pawn is enough to win: queen the pawn.
'Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success' - Capablanca
@34
"One game that Black wins is not proof."
++ It is evidence. Then the burden is on white to find an improvement.
"1...e5 (Black's best response) is refuted against 1.b4 because of one game where I smashed my opponent in 17 moves this past weekend over the board."
++ Then the burden is on black to find an improvement.
"Do a search in your database for the position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6, nothing else."
++ Black wins 43%, draws 29%, white wins 27%. That is proof.
"No year range" ++ There should be a year range. If an opening is refuted, then all games before the refutation are irrelevant.
"no rating minimums or maximums"
++ There should be a rating minimum. The outcome of a game correlates more with the rating difference than with the opening. Games between lower rated players or in fast time controls contain so many errors, that the influence of the opening is negligible.
"find me 30 consecutive games where the result is 0-1" ++ No, that is not a way of proving.
Kings Gambit.
Feel free to publish your refutation of the King's Gambit.
You will become a Chess celebrity instantly.
I could not care less on arguing openings (a trivial topic) and the influence of engines but unfortunately this guy name Bobby isn’t around no more to rebuttal so I’ll just take his word for it. He may have written a book or two.
Why so hostile? There’s no reason for you to be antagonistic. Besides, this thread is supposed to be about engine refutations. Fischer’s “A Bust to the King’s Gambit” was most certainly written without consulting an engine, therefore it is irrelevant here.
Sorry, I had a rough night last night.
It’s a fine line with taking the human element out of chess.
A GM can explain the ideas and why behind the chess play; an engine does not.
Sure, you can play the KG on all levels because the human (humans make mistakes and inaccuracies) elements has greater influence but try it against a 3200 engine?
Good luck.