87% of the poll voted that SF will win Tcec Sufi 19.

[mwyoung]

I do not want TCEC to change any rules. But some people need to understand the RULES.

Garbage openings, garbage results.

Testing conditions matter!

Garbage openings only for garbage engines. And enormous pain for fanboys of a given garbage engine .

I am not a fanboy of anybody. But the results are the results. I was the first one to show that Stockfish was better then Houdini, and other engines on this forum. And got the same response as you today! Houdini a proven inferior clone of Stockfish, and better then all the rest of the engines. Including Komodo before anyone even paid attention to Stockfish. Guess who's results were correct!

You are a joke....

[Milos]

I do not want TCEC to change any rules. But some people need to understand the RULES.

Garbage openings, garbage results.

Testing conditions matter!

Garbage openings only for garbage engines. And enormous pain for fanboys of a given garbage engine .

I am not a fanboy of anybody. But the results are the results. I was the first one to show the Stockfish was better then Houdini, and other engines on this forum. And got the same response as you today! Houdini a proven inferior clone of Stockfish, and better the all the rest of the engines. Including Komodo before anyone even paid attention to Stockfish. Guess who's results were correct!

To be fair you are actually a fanboy of garbage testing, i.e. let engines play from a starting position only.

[mwyoung]

I do not want TCEC to change any rules. But some people need to understand the RULES.

Garbage openings, garbage results.

Testing conditions matter!

Garbage openings only for garbage engines. And enormous pain for fanboys of a given garbage engine .

I am not a fanboy of anybody. But the results are the results. I was the first one to show the Stockfish was better then Houdini, and other engines on this forum. And got the same response as you today! Houdini a proven inferior clone of Stockfish, and better the all the rest of the engines. Including Komodo before anyone even paid attention to Stockfish. Guess who's results were correct!

To be fair you are actually a fanboy of garbage testing, i.e. let engines play from a starting position only.

I know, since you could not argue with me record. As being a fanboy. Your projection is obvious!

[moderation] Please refrain from name calling.

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

[maac]

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

Not at all.First, rule thumb, never say (anyone, not personal) "always" or "all",
second, "biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis.

Overall, to all: why simply doesn't recognize the greatness of SF (and LC0 btw) ?

[mwyoung]

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

Not at all.First, rule thumb, never say (anyone, not personal) "always" or "all",
second, "biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis.

Overall, to all: why simply doesn't recognize the greatness of SF (and LC0 btw) ?

We are not talking about a weak player like you. Who is playing a weak opening to win against a weak player.
That is total B.S.

What are you talking about. Then yes when using garbage openings then use Stockfish. Then I highly recommend Stockfish. That is why I voted for Stockfish winning TCEC.

"as a stubborn Scandi player"-----EXACTLY!!!!

Use what ever engine that works, both engines are the best. But that is not the point of proper engine testing. And you clearly don't force inferior openings on a player, that does not play for example the Scandi, because they know it sucks.

And I did notice you did not give the position that Stockfish saved your position. What was the position, and what was Lc0 score. +1 after many hours of search, but you found a refutation with only Stockfish.

And why would you even bother to keep playing such a line to find only a way to draw that you thought was a clear loss. That is what you get from the starting position. I know "a stubborn Scandi player".

[maac]

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

Not at all.First, rule thumb, never say (anyone, not personal) "always" or "all",
second, "biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis.

Overall, to all: why simply doesn't recognize the greatness of SF (and LC0 btw) ?

We are not talking about a weak player like you. Who is playing a weak opening to win against a weak player.
That is total B.S.

What are you talking about. Then yes when using garbage openings then use Stockfish. Then I highly recommend Stockfish. That is why I voted for Stockfish winning TCEC.

"as a stubborn Scandi player"-----EXACTLY!!!!

Use what ever engine that works, both engines are the best. But that is not the point of proper engine testing. And you clearly don't force inferior openings on a player, that does not play for example the Scandi, because they know it sucks.

And I did notice you did not give the position that Stockfish saved your position. What was the position, and what was Lc0 score. +1 after many hours of search, but you found a refutation with only Stockfish.

Why would you even bother to keep playing such line to find only a way to draw that you thought was a clear loss. That is what you get from the starting position. I know "a stubborn Scandi player".

Ok, first B01 doesnt suck! By incredible that it sounds, and i know i am against rhe stream,
but there are some myths in chess still, the lines that i found equalzed are
1) white plays 5. Ne5 Cbd7 6.f4 g6 6.7. Bc4 e6 8. a4 and
2) 5. Ne5 Be6 6. Af4 Qd8 7. Qd2 both in the 3. ...Qd6 scandinavian.

But it isn't the point and you would be know, the point is 'perfect" openings with about +- 0.20
are less common that those with say us +0.50 after the opening,in that sense TCEC is very well
designed.
And, bias or not bias, the conditions are the same (duh) for both engines, so, if engine
B is not enough trained in that openings (hypothesis..) that engine A, the fault of who is!?

[mwyoung]

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

Not at all.First, rule thumb, never say (anyone, not personal) "always" or "all",
second, "biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis.

Overall, to all: why simply doesn't recognize the greatness of SF (and LC0 btw) ?

We are not talking about a weak player like you. Who is playing a weak opening to win against a weak player.
That is total B.S.

What are you talking about. Then yes when using garbage openings then use Stockfish. Then I highly recommend Stockfish. That is why I voted for Stockfish winning TCEC.

"as a stubborn Scandi player"-----EXACTLY!!!!

Use what ever engine that works, both engines are the best. But that is not the point of proper engine testing. And you clearly don't force inferior openings on a player, that does not play for example the Scandi, because they know it sucks.

And I did notice you did not give the position that Stockfish saved your position. What was the position, and what was Lc0 score. +1 after many hours of search, but you found a refutation with only Stockfish.

Why would you even bother to keep playing such line to find only a way to draw that you thought was a clear loss. That is what you get from the starting position. I know "a stubborn Scandi player".

Ok, first B01 doesnt suck! By incredible that it sounds, and i know i am against rhe stream,
but there are some myths in chess still, the lines that i found equalzed are
1) white plays 5. Ne5 Cbd7 6.f4 g6 6.7. Bc4 e6 8. a4 and
2) 5. Ne5 Be6 6. Af4 Qd8 7. Qd2 both in the 3. ...Qd6 scandinavian.

But it isn't the point and you would be know, the point is 'perfect" openings with about +- 0.20
are less common that those with say us +0.50 after the opening,in that sense TCEC is very well
designed.
And, bias or not bias, the conditions are the same (duh) for both engines, so, if engine
B is not enough trained in that openings (hypothesis..) that engine A, the fault of who is!?

Words mean things, and that was your point.

"biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis."

And clearly not at todays engine level. Or the top GM level +1 evaluations.

You claimed +1

Give the position!

[maac]

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

Not at all.First, rule thumb, never say (anyone, not personal) "always" or "all",
second, "biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis.

Overall, to all: why simply doesn't recognize the greatness of SF (and LC0 btw) ?

We are not talking about a weak player like you. Who is playing a weak opening to win against a weak player.
That is total B.S.

What are you talking about. Then yes when using garbage openings then use Stockfish. Then I highly recommend Stockfish. That is why I voted for Stockfish winning TCEC.

"as a stubborn Scandi player"-----EXACTLY!!!!

Use what ever engine that works, both engines are the best. But that is not the point of proper engine testing. And you clearly don't force inferior openings on a player, that does not play for example the Scandi, because they know it sucks.

And I did notice you did not give the position that Stockfish saved your position. What was the position, and what was Lc0 score. +1 after many hours of search, but you found a refutation with only Stockfish.

Why would you even bother to keep playing such line to find only a way to draw that you thought was a clear loss. That is what you get from the starting position. I know "a stubborn Scandi player".

Ok, first B01 doesnt suck! By incredible that it sounds, and i know i am against rhe stream,
but there are some myths in chess still, the lines that i found equalzed are
1) white plays 5. Ne5 Cbd7 6.f4 g6 6.7. Bc4 e6 8. a4 and
2) 5. Ne5 Be6 6. Af4 Qd8 7. Qd2 both in the 3. ...Qd6 scandinavian.

But it isn't the point and you would be know, the point is 'perfect" openings with about +- 0.20
are less common that those with say us +0.50 after the opening,in that sense TCEC is very well
designed.
And, bias or not bias, the conditions are the same (duh) for both engines, so, if engine
B is not enough trained in that openings (hypothesis..) that engine A, the fault of who is!?

Words mean things, and that was your point.

"biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis."

And clearly not at todays engine level. Or the top GM level +1 evaluations.

You claimed +1

Give the position!

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "19"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. f4 g6 8.
Bc4 e6 9. a4 Qc7 10. Qe2 *

[/pgn]

In that position CFish 230920 evaluate +1.06 @D31, well i repaired that.

In my previous post i made clear the point: if LC0 is "not enough trained" in certain plausible
openings, the fault is his.

[mwyoung]

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

Not at all.First, rule thumb, never say (anyone, not personal) "always" or "all",
second, "biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis.

Overall, to all: why simply doesn't recognize the greatness of SF (and LC0 btw) ?

We are not talking about a weak player like you. Who is playing a weak opening to win against a weak player.
That is total B.S.

What are you talking about. Then yes when using garbage openings then use Stockfish. Then I highly recommend Stockfish. That is why I voted for Stockfish winning TCEC.

"as a stubborn Scandi player"-----EXACTLY!!!!

Use what ever engine that works, both engines are the best. But that is not the point of proper engine testing. And you clearly don't force inferior openings on a player, that does not play for example the Scandi, because they know it sucks.

And I did notice you did not give the position that Stockfish saved your position. What was the position, and what was Lc0 score. +1 after many hours of search, but you found a refutation with only Stockfish.

Why would you even bother to keep playing such line to find only a way to draw that you thought was a clear loss. That is what you get from the starting position. I know "a stubborn Scandi player".

Ok, first B01 doesnt suck! By incredible that it sounds, and i know i am against rhe stream,
but there are some myths in chess still, the lines that i found equalzed are
1) white plays 5. Ne5 Cbd7 6.f4 g6 6.7. Bc4 e6 8. a4 and
2) 5. Ne5 Be6 6. Af4 Qd8 7. Qd2 both in the 3. ...Qd6 scandinavian.

But it isn't the point and you would be know, the point is 'perfect" openings with about +- 0.20
are less common that those with say us +0.50 after the opening,in that sense TCEC is very well
designed.
And, bias or not bias, the conditions are the same (duh) for both engines, so, if engine
B is not enough trained in that openings (hypothesis..) that engine A, the fault of who is!?

Words mean things, and that was your point.

"biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis."

And clearly not at todays engine level. Or the top GM level +1 evaluations.

You claimed +1

Give the position!

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "19"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. f4 g6 8.
Bc4 e6 9. a4 Qc7 10. Qe2 *

[/pgn]

In that position CFish 230920 evaluate +1.06 @D31, well i repaired that.

In my previous post i made clear the point: if LC0 is "not enough trained" in certain plausible
openings, the fault is his.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Tactical Analysis 3.0 (5s)"]
[PlyCount "19"]

{B01: Scandinavian Defence} 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3
c6 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. f4 g6 8. Bc4 (8. g4 Bg7 9. g5 Nd5 10. Ne4 Qc7 11. c3 h6 12.
Bd3 Nxe5 13. fxe5 Bf5 14. Qf3 O-O-O 15. Bd2 Nb6 16. O-O-O h5 17. h3 Rhf8 18.
Bf4 Be6 19. Kb1 Kb8 20. Qe2 Ka8 21. Nc5 Qc8 22. Nxe6 Qxe6 {Khairullin,I (2630)
-Hasangatin,R (2505) Sochi 2016 1-0 (43)}) 8... e6 9. a4 $146 (9. Be2 Bg7 10.
O-O O-O 11. Bf3 Rd8 12. g4 c5 13. g5 Ne8 14. dxc5 Qxc5+ 15. Kh1 Qc7 16. Nd3 Nd6
17. Qe2 Rb8 18. a4 Nb6 19. f5 gxf5 20. Bf4 Bd7 21. Rad1 Nxa4 22. Nc5 Nxc3 23.
bxc3 Bb5 {Asadli,V (1936)-Aleksandrov,Z (2210) Al Ain 2013 0-1}) (9. O-O Bg7
10. a4 (10. Bb3 O-O 11. Be3 Nb6 12. Qf3 Nbd5 13. Bf2 b6 14. Ne2 Bb7 15. c4 Ne7
16. Rac1 Nd7 17. Rfd1 Qc7 18. c5 b5 19. Nc3 Nf6 20. g4 Nfd5 21. Bg3 Qd8 22.
Nxd5 exd5 23. f5 f6 24. Nd3 Qd7 {Danes,J (2293)-Medvegyne Balogh,E (2084)
Banska Stiavnica 2011 1-0 (74)}) 10... O-O 11. a5 Rb8 12. Kh1 b5 13. axb6 axb6
14. Qe2 b5 15. Bb3 b4 16. Nd1 c5 17. f5 gxf5 18. Bf4 Nd5 19. Bxd5 Qxd5 20. c4
bxc3 21. Nxc3 Qb7 22. Nxd7 Bxd7 23. Bxb8 Rxb8 {Herzog,A (2344)-Schnelzer,R
(2182) Ortisei 2018 1-0 (65)}) (9. g4 Nb6 10. Bb3 Nbd5 11. g5 Nxc3 12. bxc3 Nd7
13. a4 c5 14. a5 cxd4 15. cxd4 Qb4+ 16. Kf2 Nxe5 17. fxe5 Bd7 18. c4 Qc3 19.
Be3 h6 20. Qc2 Qxc2+ 21. Bxc2 Bc6 22. Ba4 hxg5 23. Kg3 Rh4 {Mejia,G (1932)
-Laylo,D (2489) Boracay Island 2012 1/2-1/2 (52)}) 9... Qc7 (9... Bg7 $14) 10.
Qe2 *

[/pgn]

You are so full of B.S. Neither engine Lc0, or SF would play your crappy 9..Qc7??

New game Line
r1b1kb1r/pp1n1p1p/2pqpnp1/4N3/P1BP1P2/2N5/1PP3PP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 1

Analysis by Lc0 v0.26.3:

9...Bg7 10.b3 0-0 11.Ba3 c5 12.dxc5 Qxd1+ 13.Rxd1 Nxe5 14.fxe5 Ng4 15.Ne4 Ne3 16.Bb2 Nxd1 17.Kxd1 Bd7 18.Bb5 Rfd8 19.Ke2 b6 20.c4 bxc5 21.Nxc5 Bc8 22.Rd1 Rxd1 23.Kxd1 Bf8 24.Bc6 Rb8 25.Bd4 Bxc5 26.Bxc5 Rxb3 27.Kc2 Rb7 28.Bxb7 Bxb7 29.g4 a5 30.g5 Bc6 31.Kb3 Bf3 32.Kc3 Bd1 33.Kd4 Bxa4 34.Be7 Bd1 35.Kd3 Bf3 36.h4 Kg7 37.Kd4 Be2 38.Kc3 h6 39.Kb3
White is slightly better: +/= (0.35) Depth: 34/68 00:04:42 5254kN
(, 13.10.2020)

New game Line
r1b1kb1r/pp1n1p1p/2pqpnp1/4N3/P1BP1P2/2N5/1PP3PP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 051020:

9...Bg7 10.0-0 0-0 11.b3 Qc7 12.a5 b5 13.axb6 Nxb6 14.Qf3 Bb7 15.Ba6 Bxa6 16.Rxa6 Rfd8 17.Na4 Nfd5 18.Ba3 Nxa4 19.Rxa4 Nb6 20.Ra6 Rxd4 21.Nxc6 Rd7 22.c4 Qb7 23.Ra5 Rc7 24.Ne5 Rd8 25.h3 Qxf3 26.Rxf3 Nc8 27.Rc5 Bxe5 28.fxe5 Rcd7 29.Rc6 Ne7 30.Bxe7 Rxe7 31.Rd6 Rb8 32.c5 Rc7 33.c6 Rb5 34.Rc3 Rxe5
White is slightly better: +/= (0.50 ++) Depth: 45/51 00:04:46 6435MN, tb=1175
(, 13.10.2020)

A crappy opening with at even crappier move. What was your point again? If 9..Qc7 is your best move. No wonder your a stubborn Scandi player.

[maac]

I said "Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!"

Not at all.First, rule thumb, never say (anyone, not personal) "always" or "all",
second, "biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis.

Overall, to all: why simply doesn't recognize the greatness of SF (and LC0 btw) ?

We are not talking about a weak player like you. Who is playing a weak opening to win against a weak player.
That is total B.S.

What are you talking about. Then yes when using garbage openings then use Stockfish. Then I highly recommend Stockfish. That is why I voted for Stockfish winning TCEC.

"as a stubborn Scandi player"-----EXACTLY!!!!

Use what ever engine that works, both engines are the best. But that is not the point of proper engine testing. And you clearly don't force inferior openings on a player, that does not play for example the Scandi, because they know it sucks.

And I did notice you did not give the position that Stockfish saved your position. What was the position, and what was Lc0 score. +1 after many hours of search, but you found a refutation with only Stockfish.

Why would you even bother to keep playing such line to find only a way to draw that you thought was a clear loss. That is what you get from the starting position. I know "a stubborn Scandi player".

Ok, first B01 doesnt suck! By incredible that it sounds, and i know i am against rhe stream,
but there are some myths in chess still, the lines that i found equalzed are
1) white plays 5. Ne5 Cbd7 6.f4 g6 6.7. Bc4 e6 8. a4 and
2) 5. Ne5 Be6 6. Af4 Qd8 7. Qd2 both in the 3. ...Qd6 scandinavian.

But it isn't the point and you would be know, the point is 'perfect" openings with about +- 0.20
are less common that those with say us +0.50 after the opening,in that sense TCEC is very well
designed.
And, bias or not bias, the conditions are the same (duh) for both engines, so, if engine
B is not enough trained in that openings (hypothesis..) that engine A, the fault of who is!?

Words mean things, and that was your point.

"biased" positions are the bread and butter of chess any day, so, one of the
main functions of engines is the eval of such positions, case in point, as a stubborn
Scandi player i have studied certain positions where the score after opening is in
the vicinity of +1.0 for white, guess what, thanks to latest SF i have found the
refutations after many hours of (cyclic) analysis."

And clearly not at todays engine level. Or the top GM level +1 evaluations.

You claimed +1

Give the position!

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "19"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. f4 g6 8.
Bc4 e6 9. a4 Qc7 10. Qe2 *

[/pgn]

In that position CFish 230920 evaluate +1.06 @D31, well i repaired that.

In my previous post i made clear the point: if LC0 is "not enough trained" in certain plausible
openings, the fault is his.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Tactical Analysis 3.0 (5s)"]
[PlyCount "19"]

{B01: Scandinavian Defence} 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3
c6 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. f4 g6 8. Bc4 (8. g4 Bg7 9. g5 Nd5 10. Ne4 Qc7 11. c3 h6 12.
Bd3 Nxe5 13. fxe5 Bf5 14. Qf3 O-O-O 15. Bd2 Nb6 16. O-O-O h5 17. h3 Rhf8 18.
Bf4 Be6 19. Kb1 Kb8 20. Qe2 Ka8 21. Nc5 Qc8 22. Nxe6 Qxe6 {Khairullin,I (2630)
-Hasangatin,R (2505) Sochi 2016 1-0 (43)}) 8... e6 9. a4 $146 (9. Be2 Bg7 10.
O-O O-O 11. Bf3 Rd8 12. g4 c5 13. g5 Ne8 14. dxc5 Qxc5+ 15. Kh1 Qc7 16. Nd3 Nd6
17. Qe2 Rb8 18. a4 Nb6 19. f5 gxf5 20. Bf4 Bd7 21. Rad1 Nxa4 22. Nc5 Nxc3 23.
bxc3 Bb5 {Asadli,V (1936)-Aleksandrov,Z (2210) Al Ain 2013 0-1}) (9. O-O Bg7
10. a4 (10. Bb3 O-O 11. Be3 Nb6 12. Qf3 Nbd5 13. Bf2 b6 14. Ne2 Bb7 15. c4 Ne7
16. Rac1 Nd7 17. Rfd1 Qc7 18. c5 b5 19. Nc3 Nf6 20. g4 Nfd5 21. Bg3 Qd8 22.
Nxd5 exd5 23. f5 f6 24. Nd3 Qd7 {Danes,J (2293)-Medvegyne Balogh,E (2084)
Banska Stiavnica 2011 1-0 (74)}) 10... O-O 11. a5 Rb8 12. Kh1 b5 13. axb6 axb6
14. Qe2 b5 15. Bb3 b4 16. Nd1 c5 17. f5 gxf5 18. Bf4 Nd5 19. Bxd5 Qxd5 20. c4
bxc3 21. Nxc3 Qb7 22. Nxd7 Bxd7 23. Bxb8 Rxb8 {Herzog,A (2344)-Schnelzer,R
(2182) Ortisei 2018 1-0 (65)}) (9. g4 Nb6 10. Bb3 Nbd5 11. g5 Nxc3 12. bxc3 Nd7
13. a4 c5 14. a5 cxd4 15. cxd4 Qb4+ 16. Kf2 Nxe5 17. fxe5 Bd7 18. c4 Qc3 19.
Be3 h6 20. Qc2 Qxc2+ 21. Bxc2 Bc6 22. Ba4 hxg5 23. Kg3 Rh4 {Mejia,G (1932)
-Laylo,D (2489) Boracay Island 2012 1/2-1/2 (52)}) 9... Qc7 (9... Bg7 $14) 10.
Qe2 *

[/pgn]

You are so full of B.S. Neither engine Lc0, or SF would play your crappy 9..Qc7??

New game Line
r1b1kb1r/pp1n1p1p/2pqpnp1/4N3/P1BP1P2/2N5/1PP3PP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 1

Analysis by Lc0 v0.26.3:

9...Bg7 10.b3 0-0 11.Ba3 c5 12.dxc5 Qxd1+ 13.Rxd1 Nxe5 14.fxe5 Ng4 15.Ne4 Ne3 16.Bb2 Nxd1 17.Kxd1 Bd7 18.Bb5 Rfd8 19.Ke2 b6 20.c4 bxc5 21.Nxc5 Bc8 22.Rd1 Rxd1 23.Kxd1 Bf8 24.Bc6 Rb8 25.Bd4 Bxc5 26.Bxc5 Rxb3 27.Kc2 Rb7 28.Bxb7 Bxb7 29.g4 a5 30.g5 Bc6 31.Kb3 Bf3 32.Kc3 Bd1 33.Kd4 Bxa4 34.Be7 Bd1 35.Kd3 Bf3 36.h4 Kg7 37.Kd4 Be2 38.Kc3 h6 39.Kb3
White is slightly better: +/= (0.35) Depth: 34/68 00:04:42 5254kN
(, 13.10.2020)

New game Line
r1b1kb1r/pp1n1p1p/2pqpnp1/4N3/P1BP1P2/2N5/1PP3PP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 051020:

9...Bg7 10.0-0 0-0 11.b3 Qc7 12.a5 b5 13.axb6 Nxb6 14.Qf3 Bb7 15.Ba6 Bxa6 16.Rxa6 Rfd8 17.Na4 Nfd5 18.Ba3 Nxa4 19.Rxa4 Nb6 20.Ra6 Rxd4 21.Nxc6 Rd7 22.c4 Qb7 23.Ra5 Rc7 24.Ne5 Rd8 25.h3 Qxf3 26.Rxf3 Nc8 27.Rc5 Bxe5 28.fxe5 Rcd7 29.Rc6 Ne7 30.Bxe7 Rxe7 31.Rd6 Rb8 32.c5 Rc7 33.c6 Rb5 34.Rc3 Rxe5
White is slightly better: +/= (0.50 ++) Depth: 45/51 00:04:46 6435MN, tb=1175
(, 13.10.2020)

A crappy opening with at even crappier move. What was your point again? If 9..Qc7 is your best move. No wonder your a stubborn Scandi player.

Qc7 is the best move only if white doesnt respond with Qe2; as club player, is very
probable an human exactly play it; anyway, why insist you with your "crappy" words
when, as your analysis show, it doesnt gives more of 0.5, pretty standard for any opening?