No, there cant be forced wins for wrong first moves I think.
Has any 1st move, for white or black ever been refuted?
Sort:
Nope. You'd have to f*ck up a good two moves as black and three as white before a forced win could be achieved.
If winning after an opponent's first move was 100% certain, this game wouldn't be all that fun.
I think the real question is what constitutes a refutation of an opening?
The problem is that many players disagree on when to use the term refuted because it has not been defined, especially with the Grob opening thread.
For black after 1.d4 e5!? and 1. Nf3 e5?! have more or less been refuted. With perfect play by both sides (machine match) white has winning advantage and will win in an 80 percent of the games and draw the rest.
Well no first move has led to a forced loss, no. Someone argued that every first move is at least equal for white, but I disagreed, the most obvious exceptions being moves that weaken the position like 1 h4. Moves like h4 are pretty unnecessary to analyze because there are so few tactical ideas behind it, we just see a kingside weakness, so we figure black must be pretty good there, perhaps even better, but it doesn't even need analysis. A good player could get a pretty nice position as black I'm sure.
Feb 15, 2010
0
#8
Well, I can say that if black is just giving up a pawn in the opening, after 1.Nf3 e5 2. Nxe5, that pretty much is a "refutation" for that opening...
I define refutation as: leading to a forced win.
Feb 15, 2010
0
#9
Well I think that for something to be refuted it has to be proved that the line cannot be held. An inferior position that can be held is what would be defined as equal. After all if a position can be proved to be drawn then it's not really inferior even if it seems so. Remember we're not talking about "practical chances" over the board. We're talking opening/game theory here.
Feb 15, 2010
0
#10
zxb995511 wrote:
For black after 1.d4 e5!? and 1. Nf3 e5?! have more or less been refuted. With perfect play by both sides (machine match) white has winning advantage and will win in an 80 percent of the games and draw the rest.
I would think that 1.Nf3 e5? is even worse than 1.d4 e5?!
I would also think that 1.e4 b5? and 1.d4 g5 are worse than 1.e4 e5?!
That being said, I don't doubt your numbers. But do you have any data to back them up?
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
zxb995511 wrote:
For black after 1.d4 e5!? and 1. Nf3 e5?! have more or less been refuted. With perfect play by both sides (machine match) white has winning advantage and will win in an 80 percent of the games and draw the rest.
I would think that 1.Nf3 e5? is even worse than 1.d4 e5?!
I would also think that 1.e4 b5? and 1.d4 g5 are worse than 1.e4 e5?!
That being said, I don't doubt your numbers. But do you have any data to back them up?
All you need is a good machine and a chess engine. Pit them agains eachother they will give you the data. (I have never tried the e4 b5 or d4 g5 but i shall experiment one of these days-I think the results will be similar to the other two I have tested).
Feb 15, 2010
0
#12
Did you use an opening book for the Englund Gambit? (1.d4 e5?!)
well I used to play 1)b4 (the Sokolsky or Orang-Utan) with some success until I tried it against James Plaskett - wow! - he demolished me without any preamble - I have only played it once since - won the game, but kinda chucked it out of me repertoire 
pretty bloody sure that the very best have ways to refute that one 
By the OP's definition of "refuted," the only openings that have been refuted are 1. resigns and 1. any resigns. 1. draw can be seen as "refuted" since white has allowed black to equalize.
But seriously, 1. f3? is known to be pretty bad. The best white can hope for is a transposition into a more conventional defense like the Dutch Defense, if black allows it. That said, according to Game Explorer, 1. f3? e5 2. Kf2? wins half the time :).
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
zxb995511 wrote:
For black after 1.d4 e5!? and 1. Nf3 e5?! have more or less been refuted. With perfect play by both sides (machine match) white has winning advantage and will win in an 80 percent of the games and draw the rest.
I would think that 1.Nf3 e5? is even worse than 1.d4 e5?!
I would also think that 1.e4 b5? and 1.d4 g5 are worse than 1.e4 e5?!
That being said, I don't doubt your numbers. But do you have any data to back them up?
1. e4 e5 is hardly dubious.
Regulary i play my first two moves e3 and d3 (as black e6 and d6),
Many higher rated players who chat also claim that this is very bad but given the unknown opening they do many time not know how to reply, and that is then an adventage.
And the results are below
No that is a sign i am still learning it ;)
It is a part of an opening that includes many practise, when started i lost many but got better over time at it.
(most games lost are done by blunders in the middle game of my side, while the positions were still solid, but my brain wasn't 
)
I was just reading through the topic going on right now about the "Grob" opening. It led me to the following question: Has any FIRST move, ever, in the history of modern chess been refuted for either white or black? When I say refuted, I mean really actually refuted, as in there is a forced win for one side after the other beginning with play on move 2.
Anybody have any thoughts about this? I don't know if anyone knows the answer to this, but my feeling is "no", there has never been a refutation to any first move by either white or black...