Is there any refutation to the Sicilian Grand Prix Attack?

Ahh... the greek never gets old. nice game...

thanks

Yeah so this depends where it ends up. The Sicilian "Grand Prix" has both a Bc4 and Bb5 main variations. Both of them involve the eventual idea that white wants to play f5 to kick off a kingside attack after black castles. This can be especially gnarly when black has pawns on g6 and e6 rocking that dark square weakness. As black I prefer not to develop the dark square bishop to g7.
There is no clear refutation and its a solid yet out of meta opening. So you do need to study a bit of theory. But It's got pretty clear ideas behind it as opposed to being an overly move order specific opening. Its got a distinctive pawn structure too. So it would probably be helpful to study some of the games by Korchnoi, Nigel Short, Kasparov, Shirov, when they employ the openings. If you learn it as white, you'll have a good idea how to mess with it as black and what white wants out of the positions.

No, it does not have a refutation, however you can adopt the following set up and fight for the win in the opposite side castling game. You can sacrifice a pawn on the King side to open files and just wipe white off the board. It is a double edged game but so you need to be careful (as in any opening really)

Oh really? I sometimes do that kind of thing & I've had some quite good wins against it and other closed setups by white. Didn't know it was a standard thing.

Yes, you can do this against the Closed Sicilian in fact this is the only way I play against the closed which you are likely to get after ...a6. I don`t know if it is standard because I do not study theory but I know it is fully playable especially if you play against a weaker opponent - they are quite adept at playing for a draw in the closed vs g6 Bg7 set ups. If I struggle with certain openings I run computer matches on my PC between a stronger and a weaker engine and my old super weak PC came up with this QS side castling idea, I then looked at all the lines on a 10,000Kn/s+ engine and developed a system vs all of white`s move orders in the closed Sicilian. I don`t believe the g6 Bg7 set ups lead to anything for black, especially in quick time controls you are likely to end on the back foot.

But you're also now 2000, which means you're going to be encountering more serious resistance and "dumb" lines which were simple and got quick wins are definitely going to stop working at some point. Unlike you I actually play the sicilian as black and I can tell you what lines are good and why, whereas your response.... doesn't say anything about the SM. You should play the sicilian yourself and figure it out. Sicilian players breathe a sigh of relief when you play the Smith Morra. Even if you're set on the anti-sicilian route - there are far better anti-sicilians.

Well, at least you're not playing the same first 10 moves 95% of SM players play, so I will give you that. Can you describe what function clearing c2 served in this game? You never used the c file - it even got blocked immediately, because for reasons unknown black traded off his bishop - bad idea. Your queen never used the diagonal... 
You can push f4 without clearing c2, it's called the Mcdonnell attack or the grand prix. You aren't up a tempo if you don't utilize c2.

The most I could see you getting out of this is that you could possibly utilize Bc2 at some point. That didn't happen here, though...

Maybe you just feel more comfortable with Bd3 knowing you have Bc2? And combined with keeping the knight on the kingside you feel this gives you alot of early kingside pressure? It's not really congruent with pushing f4, though, which builds up to an attack. This is why SM players usually play it differently. But overall I'd say this is a tarzan-attack approach to the sicilian, where if you don't win early on... you may as well have played another line, like the Grand Prix.

It might work practically since it allows you to study very specific patterns and just drill them / get easy wins sometimes and not think about anything else. But it is fundamentally an unthinking approach to the game which will not work forever. White doesn't need to do something so desperate to get a strong attack in the sicilian. If you know how to play the sicilian you will get strong attacks.

I have usually, against the closed sicilian, attacked on the Q-side but with the intention of blocking it up, especially when I can bury a couple of white's pieces and it may take white 4 or 5 moves to dig them out. Then switch to a K side attack and if necessary can walk the K from g7 to the Qside.

Also I'm just as likely to play g6, h5 with Be7. That can be a better square than g7.

clearing the c2 is simply to get ahead in development after 4.Nxc3. I get the initiative early.

You get a bit of initiative but there are so many plans against the Smith Morra that are good enough and one that's nearly a win for black or may be a win. Even so, at a particular level, around 1700 to 1800 FIDE, it's quite good.

Show me the lines where Black is better.

No, you played c3 dxc3 Nxc3. You gained a tempo with dxc3 Nxc3, that's true. But you lost a tempo when you played c3 in the first place. If you just play Nc3 without the gambit you're equal in tempo in terms of your knights development.

Any "tempo gain" comes from clearing c2 for free. That is all. if you don't utilize that in any way - you are not up in tempo.

You could also argue the knight staying on the kingside is slightly more useful in a kingside attack - maybe. But that also happens in other openings, like the Grand Prix, or even the McDonnell if you want it to... There are lines where the forward knight is better, too.

Since c2 is cleared Bd3 is a safer move. Bc2 + Qd3 can form a battery. Hence you may get something interesting with Bd3 + your knight on the kingside. But that's going for something very early, and if you don't get anything from it... I don't see what your advantage is. You don't have any advantage in tempo unless you utilize c2.

Hence why, again, most white players don't slow-push f4 here, they go for something much quicker, as it makes more sense with what they're doing. 
If you don't believe it - well explain why f4 is not even in the top 12 engine moves in the SM position. It's like -0.40 by leela standard, which is almost a full pawn by stockfish. It's not like it's a rare move in the sicilian.

I'm not denying you may get some wins with that early Bd3 + knight still on the kingside, but that's about the extent of it. If that doesn't work... you should have played the Grand Prix instead.

I mean I win with it. It does not matter what Stockfish thinks, I'm playing against humans. My favorite openings are never the best according to Stockfish, they just win(Budapest Gambit, Alekhine, Vienna, Smith-Morra Gambit, etc.)

Besides, that diagonal for the bishop after Bd3 is nice.

You're playing against humans but you don't understand your compensation, as you thought Nxc3 was the tempo gain. The tempo gain is in clearing c2. And the fact your knight stays on the kingside.

You can play it but it's not good. I would advise you to find something better - especially since you're now 2000, it's not gonna be easy early wins forever. Depends on what your aspirations are. But do you deny that you play this due to its simplicity? I wouldn't deny that it's a simple line and easy to learn. I deny that it's good beyond this. It's easy for black to learn too, you know.

Yeah, your bishop line is interesting and the only reason I'm not really denigrating it is you don't play what everyone else plays. What everyone else plays I call garbage, in your case I'm willing to call it tricks only.

In this position, the analysis tool is saying "dead even". I don't think so!

I agree with one of these. Not Alekhine's though. The 4-pawn attack played properly! Nor Budapest. Definitely the Vienna though. Game, not Gambit.

Here's the line I like, kind of similar. This is what 95% of SM players play for reasons I don't quite understand -

I just keep the pawn on d7 for a long time and develop everything else.

In his case he's doing something slightly different which makes it a bit better but I still feel it's too reliant on early success, but to each his own

I also play something similar. There's three easy lines and then the tricky stuff with g6. I stick to "easy".