Refuted ?

"One problem I have with all this "refuted"  discussions is that what may indeed be refuted at the 2700+ level may not mean anything at the levels far beneath them. I mean, Topalov, Anand, Aronian and company might be able to "refute" the kings gambit for example but this doesnt mean it cant be used with good results at lower levels. Maybe we all can agree with the definition given above, but do we ? What's your definition if you dont agree with the definition here ? "

I would have to regard "refuted" as a non-relative and theoretical concept. So a line, once refuted, is a refuted line for all players regardless of level (assuming the refutation is correct). If an 1100 player uses a refuted line to win a game, that doesn't mean there is no refutation at the 1100 level just that his opponent didn't play the refutation.

I'd also have to say that there is no know refutation to the King's Gambit. If 2700 rated players don't play it, that is because they consider it dubious or risky or whatever not because there exists a body of theory where every known continuation for white leads to certain disadvantage against best play - and this is true of many openings.

If what you mean to say is that, depending on the level of opposition, almost anything is playable, I would certainly concur (I used to enjoy playing 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bc5 in blitz games with reasonable success), but I would just try and correct misuses of the term "refuted" rather than try and relativize it.

and of course players can still blunder/lose their advantage in the middlegame or endgame. I usually do 

One problem I have with all this "refuted"  discussions is that what may indeed be refuted at the 2700+ level may not mean anything at the levels far beneath them.

I'm glad Reb made this point. Locally about ten years ago, there was an individual that claimed that in the French Defense, white "wins by force," essentially claiming that the French was completely refuted. Even if that were true, if an opponent didn't know how to counter all possible lines, it would be playable. At the time, I was about a 1500 (USCF) player, I played the French as black, and had a very good record with it. (Never played the claimant.)

It may be apocryphal, but I once heard that Fischer used to dig up old lines that had been refuted so long before that they were never played, and he'd play them successfully because his opponents didn't know the refutations.

yep

When the centaur stops beating fritz stops beating top gm stops beating strong club stops beating coffee house then perhaps one opening line may be considered as refuted.

>:)

A number of people here have made a good point about a refuted line being playable. I agree with that. So many openings have so many lines that have been analyzed so often that any randomly chosen old line stands a good chance of being successful OTB. Nobody can remember them all, not even the folks that eat, sleep, and breathe chess.

If an 1100 player uses a refuted line to win a game, that doesn't mean there is no refutation at the 1100 level just that his opponent just didn't play the refutation.

Also a valid point, at almost any level.

I have noticed that on various posts to this site and discussion in other venues, a great deal of emphasis is given to theory at the highest level, whether that be GM or strongest computer. Yet 99.9% of chess is not played at that level. While advances in  theory are fascinating and worthwhile, in practical terms, they often have little relevance to most of us.

If someone busts an opening on move 3, to where even a developmentally challenged chimpanzee can be taught to remember the line, that's one thing. A subtle improvement at move 11 of an obscure variation ... is another matter.

Exactly, and they may be effective for that precise reason, they are not fashionable. I always figure if it took the best players on earth 60 years to discredit some lines, what chance does my likely opponent have over the board......

Refuted to me, means there is no sequence of moves available that can preserve a draw. Of course this IS woefully inadequate! There should be a much better classification system, such as "This opening's condition is:"

Healthy, Good, Guarded, Serious, Critical, Dead, Brain Dead ... ya?

So how about:

Absolutely Refuted: No possible sequence of moves can avoid a loss vs best play & best play is substantiated. Sometimes less than best play can force the win.

Considered Refuted: By the best assessment agreed upon by Theory, there is no way to save the game even with the best Known play. Tho there is no way to substantiate all moves of all possible lines within a human lifetime. Grandmasters will Never play it in a serious game.

Out-Of-Favor as a Primary Opening: Considered inadequate for pursuit of the optimum outcome expected for it. Usually to win with WT by maintaining some degree of expected advantage, & it fails to do this. A forcing Draw line for BL would render an opening unsuited for WT tournament play. For BL, unable to attain counterplay sufficient to equalize at some point. 

Out-Of-Favor as Secondary Opening: Fails to either yield a Draw with BL despite difficult defense, or provide Winning Chances by creation of positions regarded as "Unclear", aka "risky". Cannot guarantee one an easy game to Draw as WT, when desired.

Embarrassed Opening Variation: Frowned on by theory because it can be countered by moves that make you ask yourself "wtf is that doing there??" Such as playing the Gran Prix and omitting Nc3 with WT after 1.e4 c5 2.f4!? d5! ...when WT asks himself, "wtf is my f-pawn doing out there ??"  Also includes d-base games with Ven Wely dropping his Queen before move 10, perhaps repeatedly. 

Yodariffic Refutation: Has felled one player under 1700, who may play online at website of moderately inflated non-Elo rating pool ... {IF they play an attacking opening then refuse to attack; get caught in a variation they haven't seen; so play without plan or understanding; usually a blitz game. Warning: NOT to be used vs GM's~ nor twice vs the same B player !} 

Finally, Boring-Refuted: There is so little going on it is unclear who will tumble to the floor asleep first ... thus Both sides are Refuted.

Well thats just my thoughts on it. I doubt if it'll catch on, but if it ever does ... On second thought ... How about just "GM/IM Refuted", "M/X Refuted", "A-Refuted", "B-Refuted, down to about "F-Refuted~!" and at F-Refuted~!, no one can ever play it again ?!

There are probably only two "F-Refuted~!" openings and those are 1. f3 e5 2. g4 and 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6. Anything else and you're getting into playable territory.

Philosophically speaking, if a refutation exists but none of your opponents ever play it, is the opening still refuted?

I had asked a similar question about whether white actually has an advantage at the lower class player level..

But an opening is still refuted, and "white" as an abstract somebody still has an advantage. "Refuted" is not a practical term. It includes actual best play as part of its definition. If a computer were, through years of analysis, to demonstrate that  the Two Knights Defense fails in all variations, it wouldn't matter that the refutation involves thousands of pages of analysis that no human could ever memorize. We would still have to consider the Two Knights refuted even though it might still be perfectly playable.

 In today's Chess Today, IM Sam Collins reviews the book Attacking the Spanish, giving it top marks but notes that it's not really for those below 2300.

He concludes with this remark, which seems relevant:

I think we're rapidly approaching a world where club players blitz out novelties followed by 15 moves of precisely prepared home analysis, before dropping their queen because they don't know what a fork is.

 LOL  I can see that happening too !  Its one of the funniest posts I have seen yet , and probably true as well ! 

I think we're rapidly approaching a world where club players blitz out novelties followed by 15 moves of precisely prepared home analysis, before dropping their queen because they don't know what a fork is.

While I can't say there isn't some truth to these sorts of remarks, it's interesting that we mostly hear them from IMs and maybe lesser GMs. Silman too is really one for dissing the very rabbits and patzers who are his patrons. Frustrated ambition maybe?

@Gonnosuke

I wouldn't doubt what you're saying at all. Given that anyone with a computer can now have a super-GM at his or her disposal, all it takes is the imagination to look for creative moves to test out and verify or discard.

I heard a GM once said, "You say that pawn is poison. Prove it!" I can't attrute that quote, but believe it is true. Nothing is refuted till you yourself, can prove it at the board. Studying a so called refuted line may help one to see what causes a certain lines weakness and may lead to variations that might rehabilitate that line, and reinterating what has been said before 98% of us may still use a refuted line with effect.

    I'm glad this thread popped up as I think the word "refuted" gets bandied about way too much on these forums.  You see disagreements breakout where people clearly have a different idea of what is meant by that word and are just not on the same page.  It's been very interesting to read everyones' ideas on the subject.

Gonnusuke: appearances and reality are different. Fine, take out centipawns and say 'at a clear positional disadvantage'. Analysis-wise, it also depends on which engine you use :p Fritz seems rather more prone to donating quite healthy evals on White in some Sicilian lines, whereas Rybka is always much more reserved (0.7 suddenly becomes 0.2).

Take this 'opening' for White - 1.c3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.d3 Bg7 4.d4 d5 5.g3 dxc4 6.Bh3 c6 7.Bg2 White isn't losing, but he must already be worse (if you think he's already lost, take it up to move 4 or so instead). I'd consider this refuted, on the basis that you'd be a fool to play it. If an opening for White leaves you clearly worse very quickly (but still some way off lost) or as Black you're on the verge of being lost, then these openings shouldn't be played and could therefore be classed as refuted.

Then again, maybe it is a bit about semantics. tonydal said deficient = inferior, refuted = lost. From my own point of view, I wouldn't play a line that's patently inferior, so I consider it refuted as I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

Regarding your philisophical question: yes, it's still refuted. I think refutations are more objective than subjective experiences. e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qxe5+ Ne7. Even if you, as Black, found all your opponents played 6.Qg3 instead of 6.Qxh8 and left you with a good game, it'd seem silly to think the line isn't 'refuted'.

In my opinion, this is clearly bad, you'd be a fool to play it, et cetera -- but until you give us its actual refutation, it can't be called refuted.

"On the verge of being lost" sounds like it's not 100% refuted yet.

What comp evaluation is " clearly winning " ? Is it  +1. and greater ? Does it require more than +1. ? Maybe +1. with Rybka is clearly winning but not with fritz or crafty ? How much can these beasts be trusted ? Then, there is the well known "horizon effect" with the beasts..... in any event my contention is that what Rybka may refute most human players cannot otb. Its like weaknesses in chess, like a "hole" in ones position. We all agree that a "hole" is a weakness but what if it cant be exploited? Is it still a weakness ?