@jahrzehnte said in #10:
> If your question is: "What does 'refutation' mean?", I would answer:
>
> A refutation is, when a move or move order, which can not be prevented without worsening the position even more, proves that an (intended) win is actually a draw or worse, or that an (intended) draw is actually a loss.
And is yours better? I can't understand the nested logic of the sentence. I should untangle it.
move A. obligatory best move of worst moves. move A best move, also continued with best moves to some consequence, that we all agree is a draw or worse, for which side, in this case here gambit, the side having the initiative of offering a gambit. I conclude the claim that was refuted is not that the Stafford gambit was playable, but was a win.
I guess a named opening line is either an attack or a defense, i.e. a sided decision of some kind, here gambit could be either, but one side offers the gambit.
> Why are there more than one refutation, if one refutation proves that the win hypothesis is proven impossible?
> Are you sure that the claim was a win for the gambit for all its continuations, under "best" play?
> or only in this case.. in general refutations could be about other claims about the line in question?
I wonder if we really seek to know which opening are winning or which openings are still undecided enough to accept playing further. That win novelties are necessarily transient. because worse that draw, is win for the other side. So if a gambit is refuted one or many times, it means the side offering the gambit, should not offer it. At the position where the gambit is possible. Ok. is it always about refuting a win claim? Does everyone agree on what is a refutation, or what it is that is getting refuted. My question is more about the object of refutation. and you did provide a possible answer. A win bias claim is being refuted by one or more than one worse lines. others?
See I think providing more than rambling offers more chances for a reasoning to be read from many angles for its flaws, making them pin pointable. A too concice dense nexted logic sentence, might be equally hard to read, and offer little redundancy to be recuperated for meaning. So. 2 possible extremes? I think the problem might come for the subject itself being not that well defined. or explained. and too much propagation of that may appear like we know the meaning of the words for they are repeated often enough.
Thanks though.. your response is one vote for Win claim. and one refutation is sufficient.
My god.
A refutation is a line or variation in which a large advantage is gained for the side playing against the dubious opening.
@Avetik_ChessMood said in #1:
> Comments on lichess.org/@/avetik_chessmood/blog/stafford-gambit--the-refutation/exkllgmI
I stopped reading as soon as you did not write x for exchanges in described moves... so disturbing
@SveshnikovisKing said in #13:
> A refutation is a line or variation in which a large advantage is gained for the side playing against the dubious opening.
The dubious was not dubious before the sharing of that one line. sorry for not using worn out words, I mean to be read without preconceptions that may exist, so only mine are proposed.
It is all fine. What is being refuted, is that all line are playable, from that dubious prefix. On such big amplitude partial continuation is enough, I agree to refute that claim.
But does it mean that the prefix has only such bad continuations. This is mostly about readjusting words that may have drifted across many people, from repetition and successive rages at the top for a new opening variations and then their"refutations" as: no finally it was not that great, see that big downer refutation one liner, it is a refutation of the bloated claim, , that rage was dubious then.. awh. said the "all the rage"... where is the next nugget to rule them all? Then when the dust setlles 2 generation later, someone forgot the "refutation" of back then, and discovers that some of those refuted things are still playable.. go figure.
No.
full disclosure. I don't know much. and opening theory or data has been a mystery to me for a while.
So I bump into words I guess. And now about the blog. Well, it does seem like not an opening one would want to dive in without preparation... It seems that the author is aware of refutation having drifted, and well that is how things are. So an opening line prefix that has many refutation continuations, well, not just a big winner claim=dubious, but probably given my level (floating variable often), well not playable either, another claim that I though could be what opening theory is about. But there is the evoluation of opening theory, its dynamics, and transient waves (all the rage). Good that there are pauses where one can tally the state of things. The blog.
Just to clarify this was not about the blog content. But with such limite lobby exposure to discussion, and 3 head musical chair. Well why not discuss things that get in the way sometimes here. The blog is just using the normal terminology.
@SveshnikovisKing said in #6:
> Not acceptable that Lichess is pushing this on their updates page. Completely unacceptable.
I noticed too. The date keeps updating or somethin'