Lasker's Defense refuted?

Well, no.

The h4/g4 idea is certainly interesting, and may become a trend, but no more than that.

First, if Black feels adventurous, he can first take on g5: 14...hg5 15.hg5 e4. Actually this was played in Wang Hao- Kravtsiv, which ended in a draw. I guess Aronian knew about this game (it was played shortly before his game with Harikrishna) and had something prepared- but then it's just my guess. Such a pawngrabbing looks dangerous, but white's king is not safe, either.

Second, Alekseev has tried against Ragger the odd looking 11...Nd6!? which is provoking White to release the tension in the center. The game went 12.c5 (maybe 12.g5!?) Ne8 13.g5 e5!? (13...h5 14.Be2 Nc7 is slightly passive, but does not look bad, either) 14.gh6 (maybe not best) gh6 15.Rg1+ Ng7 16.Bh3 f5! and black is fine (the game was drawn after 17.de5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5).

Finally, there is the VERY recent game Mamedyarov- Fridman, ETCC 2011, played only 5 days ago, which went 11...Nxc3 12.Rxc3 c5!? (quite logical) 13.g5 h5 14.Be2 g6!? (enterprising pawn sac, but Houdini "thinks" that either 14...dc4 15.Bxc4 Rb8 or 14...b6!? 15.cd5 Bb7! are fine for Black) 15.cd5 ed5 16.dc5 Nxc5 17.Qxd5 Na4 (17...Ne4 18.Rc4 Re8 also looks like giving black reasonable compensation) 18.Rc4 Be6 19.Qe5 Nxb2!? (home prep? anyway, both 19...b5 and 19...Nb6 look quite reasonable). 20.Qxb2 Bxc4 21.Bxc4 Qe4 22.Be2 Rac8 and Black's active rooks were sufficient to draw the material deficit- although I think that with optimal play White can sqeeze some advantage- it's far from trivial, though, and Mamedyarov, who's a superb technical player, was unable to win.

All these games are VERY recent, and most certainly there are more to come... but surely enough, the Lasker is not "refuted".

I'd also like to notice that Mamedyarov started with 10.g4 and not 10.h4, which was thought to be slightly inaccurate, because Black has the extra option of 10...f5!?

Obvioulsy, there is some home prep running here, and it's silly to comment before some games are played. The only one I found after 10.g4 f5 is a game Halkias- Fridman, where black won out of a totally lost position. But this does not tell something constructive: It was a blitz game.

Again with that stupid word "refuted"

1. Declare that a common/famous/well-known opening is refuted

2. Post a single game where the player using the opening loses, without annotation

3. ?????

4. Profit

HAR!!

This game is analysised in Sep/Oct edition of chess evolution will check out what has to say there too.

I look forward to you reporting what you find out.

They give a lot of analysis this game, mentioning all pfren's comments other than 11...Nd6. 11...f5 an interesting move which deserves attention. 11...c5 along with game continuation , this is a natural way counterattack in center. Several pages analysis of this. They don't think black went wrong in main game until 15...exd4, when they think 15...e4 is more principaled continuation.

Probably the simplest way to get equality is   11...Nxc3 12.Rxc3 c5!? 13.g5 h5 14.Bg2 they don't mention be2 of more recent game, 14...dxc4 etc or 14...b6.