Refuted Openings

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2031
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Refuted Openings

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:45 pm

Hi
Any idea how can I find refuted openings?

Thanks in advance

Andrew Bak
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:48 am
Location: Bradford
Contact:

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Andrew Bak » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:04 pm

I've heard that 1.g4 e5 2.f3 isn't the best but the refutation is quite subtle and only the top GMs can really tease out the nuances and get a slight advantage for Black.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2031
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:07 pm

Andrew Bak wrote:I've heard that 1.g4 e5 2.f3 isn't the best but the refutation is quite subtle and only the top GMs can really tease out the nuances and get a slight advantage for Black.
Believe me or not, some 16 years ago I reached such a position as Black and I gave a 2-move win. :D

John Upham
Posts: 4066
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by John Upham » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:19 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:Hi
Any idea how can I find refuted openings?

Thanks in advance

Try the favourite reference work of Tony Miles:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Unorth ... s+openings :D

Nick Burrows
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Nick Burrows » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:50 pm

John Nunn offers a refutation of Latvian in 'Secrets of Practical Chess'

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2302
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:05 pm

I don't play the Latvian anymore, but there are more unsound openings than that which still catch the unwary........

Jerome's Gambit, anyone?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:49 pm

I'm not actually sure if they *have* refuted the Latvian. I seem to remember seeing that there were some efforts to grovel miserable but drawn rook endings in thematic correspondence? Stupid in practice of course but if you can't prove a win then.....

One thing that computers have made really, really, clear is just how hard it for an opening to be absolutely unplayable.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:13 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote: One thing that computers have made really, really, clear is just how hard it for an opening to be absolutely unplayable.
They don't have a high opinion of the Latvian though. The sequence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 is assessed at only marginally better than leaving a pawn en-prise with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 c5 . The Elephant 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 is assessed as a quarter pawn "better" than the Latvian. Other engines may vary.

Here's a miniature against the Latvian from a county match in 1999.


soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2031
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:35 am

Who played it?

Andrew Bak
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:48 am
Location: Bradford
Contact:

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Andrew Bak » Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:53 pm

Andrew Bak wrote:I've heard that 1.g4 e5 2.f3 isn't the best but the refutation is quite subtle and only the top GMs can really tease out the nuances and get a slight advantage for Black.
Apparently Hou Yifan didn't think this was refuted for White! :shock:

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6589
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:01 pm

Andrew Bak wrote:
Andrew Bak wrote:I've heard that 1.g4 e5 2.f3 isn't the best but the refutation is quite subtle and only the top GMs can really tease out the nuances and get a slight advantage for Black.
Apparently Hou Yifan didn't think this was refuted for White! :shock:
To be fair, she played something slightly different:

1. g4 d5 2. f3 e5

Still easily winning for Black.

User avatar
Joshua Gibbs
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Joshua Gibbs » Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:08 pm

a4,the Ware opening is quite unusual but was seen here https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2017-br ... ikor_Sevag
Chess, translation, dealing with the police, programming and almost getting killed or arrested: http://honyakujoshua.blogspot.co.uk/

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2302
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:00 pm

Though is that (or any other first move for White save possibly 1f3) actually "refuted" as opposed to just not terribly good?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

User avatar
Joshua Gibbs
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Joshua Gibbs » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:17 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:Though is that (or any other first move for White save possibly 1f3) actually "refuted" as opposed to just not terribly good?
I wouldnt call 1 f3 refuted... I asked Susan Polgar who tweets me a lot and she said she wouldnt win 100% of the time against it!

I think certain absurd gambits would be refuted.
Chess, translation, dealing with the police, programming and almost getting killed or arrested: http://honyakujoshua.blogspot.co.uk/

Jon Tait
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:31 am
Contact:

Re: Refuted Openings

Post by Jon Tait » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:03 am

MartinCarpenter wrote:I'm not actually sure if they *have* refuted the Latvian. I seem to remember seeing that there were some efforts to grovel miserable but drawn rook endings in thematic correspondence? Stupid in practice of course but if you can't prove a win then.....
I think Kosten is more on the mark here.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Qf7 6 Ne3 c6 7 Nxe4
Tony Kosten wrote:This move is analysed by Nunn in his Practical Chess, and he even goes so far as to prefer this line to 7 d3! in NCO. However, this must be one of the most 'impractical' lines he could possibly have recommended, as White goes pawn hunting and finds himself subjected to a violent attack"
Certainly it's 7 d3! that causes the real problems, especially in practical terms – it's difficult playing this position as Black even in blitz games.
blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/

Post Reply