Refuted ?

There are several threads in which certain openings are said to be " refuted " . These threads result in debate with those who claim opening A is refuted and those who disagree. It occurs to me that perhaps not everyone shares the same definition for the word " refute(ed)" so I thought we should try and determine what is the definition ? Here is one definition I found in a chess glossary :

Refute:  To prove that a previously accepted move, line, or opening is deficient when best play is pursued by both sides.

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 ?

Hmmm, we are going to need another topic to define deficient, lol.

But you are totally correct, I play lines GM's wouldn't dream of, because my opponents have "refutations" GM's would also not dream of....

A refute is a line that with best play by both sides leads to a decisive result for either side.  That's my definition.

 LOL  You are right on both counts !  Part of the problem is the beasts like Rybka and Fritz. Many seem to think that if either of them says opening A is slightly better for black some take this to mean its "refuted" even though none of us can play at that level. So, ok, maybe its refuted at the 3000 beast level but that certainly doesnt mean its refuted at the human level. Many of Tal's beautiful games/sacrifices have been "refuted" by the analysis of these monsters ( HOW DARE THEY !??) but Tal wasnt playing Rybka and his very human opponents couldnt find the defense to the storms he created with the cllock ticking and such a powerful attacker pressing the attack. Tal knew some of his attacks were "unsound" but he also knew he was playing humans and not monsters like Rybka. So many times in his career he crushed the strongest players in the world with combinations/sacrifices/attacks that have since been "refuted" by the infernal contraptions. My point is that no human plays at their level and so what may be refuted at the 3000 level is still playable at the human level imo.

I think Killa's definition is too categorical. If you play an opening as White and by force you're at a half pawn positional disadvantage after 5 moves, I'd say this opening was 'refuted' - in as much as you'd be a fool to play it.

Half a pawn positional disadvantage after 5 moves ? Man, who can be so accurate at such an early stage ?

If you mean computers, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of playable lines where Fritz says +0,5 after 5 moves and which are nevertheless playable.

edit : oh you mean as white ? well, okay - what does the computer say after the KG first moves : 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 d6 5.Bc4 ?

You're kinda missing the point. I just chose half a pawn as a random evaluation.

Say evidently and clearly worse if you like. And yes, I was talking about as White.

For me, refuted means you're going to land into a lost position if your opponent plays a given line (the refutation), and inferior means you're going into a position that most strong players (+80% sample, +2200 FIDE players) don't want to play.

And even when rybka claims something is 'refuted', it's isn't neccesarily.  We can't even trust engines.  Take, for example, some of the games played between Karpov and Kasparov in the Grunfeld exchange variation where white opts to go pawn grabbing.  An engine will tell you white is up almost 1.00.  In practice, kasparov drew/won almost every single game (from the black pieces) played in this variation.  His results were so impressive that the Russian variation was popularized.

Rybka, on the other hand, still likes grabbing f7 :).

That is a good definition of refuted. I think inferior however maybe modified to a position that is unpopular/out of fashion, little data on variation (compared to most mainlines), or a position that most good player don't want to play.

Anyways yeah back on topic ... I like the definition.  There are certainly different levels of 'refuted'.

You have the Fred Defense (1. e4 f5?) which is just kinda ... 'duh'... I consider something this rediculous refuted.

And then you have the Sveshnikov, which some superGM's consider at the very least 'questionable' since the Shirov-Carlsen game.  ... Perhaps it's 'refuted' but in the practical sense most masters could still get away with it.

A line or move is refuted if after YOU play it you get beat consistantly.

Oh, I thought the definition of "refuted" was:

Play a line, lose with said line, insist that said line was winning and then berate everyone who points out what an idiot you are.

An opening is considered refuted if a few 1500s on chess.com think the opening isn't played anymore by GMs.

"Refuted" is a relative term that is a reaction to whatever was "tried." If a new line is tried, and a response can be found that shows that the new line cannot achieve its purpose, then I would say that the new line has been refuted.

More seriously, a line is refuted is there is a known refutation of it. If you want to claim an opening is refuted and people disagree with you, you need to be able to point out what the refutation is. If you don't know it, then how can you know it's refuted?

I think the converse is also true: a refutation exists if a line is known to be refuted.

This is an excellent topic started by Reb - I dont know the exact answer!

e.g.: I try many trappy lines and succeed majority of the times! Against exact play traps are meaningless - sometimes even bad. But that wouldn't deter me from trying traps - I enjoy them!

So I would consider refuted lines as those whose "refutations" are widely known, or can easily be found out by strong human players OTB.

Since we're throwing our own definitions of "refuted" out here, this comes close to mine. A refutation doesn't need to lead to a losing position for either side. It just has to prevent the opponent's line from achieving its purpose. If the opponent is attacking and the defender finds a line that stops the attack then the attack is refuted even if the position is equal for both sides. If the defender stops the attack but leaves the attacker in a superior position then the attack wasn't refuted, only blunted.

Sometimes I look at a position after the annotator has demonstrated a refutation and just don't see it. In most cases I'll eventually understand if I study it long enough and play around with it on a board. Other times I just scratch my head and figure it's either way above my understanding or the annotator is just blowing smoke. These days it's easier to tell the difference because I can just plug the position into an engine and see what pops out.

An opening is refuted if chess.com member 'jedimaster_yoda' (rating 1600 approx) says it is refuted. Do not disagree with him - as I did.