Refuted

As much as I enjoy the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), I have acknowledged from the beginning (see "But - Is this stuff playable??" Part I and Part II) that it is not really a "good" opening in the sense of the Ruy Lopez or Sicilian Defense.

So, when I ran across the following discussion of "refuted" at Tim Sawyer's "Playing Chess Openings" blog I had to chuckle. Tim was talking about a line in the Blackmar Diemer Gambit - which, when compared to the Jerome, is as solid as the Catalan or the Slav - but he makes good points.

"Refuted" in chess opening terminology has to do with theory or evidence. Basically, a variation is refuted if: when you play it, you lose.
There are three types of "refuted" variations:
1. When computer analysis overwhelmingly favors your opponent's side.
2. When the performance ratings are significantly below expectations.
3. When you lose regularly with this variation against your opponents.


My guess is that most of the members of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde are satisfied that #3 is not their problem - they either win regularly against their opponents, or they play enjoyable games (and that is enough for them).