English Chess Forum

Hi
Any idea how can I find refuted openings?

Thanks in advance

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.

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.

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

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

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

Jerome's Gambit, anyone?

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.

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.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 d6 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 7.Be3 Nf6 8.Qh4 hxg6 9.Qxf6 Qxc2 10.Qxg6+ Ke7 11.Bg5+ Kd7 12.Bb5+

Who played it?

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!

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!

To be fair, she played something slightly different:

1. g4 d5 2. f3 e5

Still easily winning for Black.

a4,the Ware opening is quite unusual but was seen here https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2017-br ... ikor_Sevag

Though is that (or any other first move for White save possibly 1f3) actually "refuted" as opposed to just not terribly good?

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.

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.