Could you check 9.Ne1 in the Berlin? 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.0-0 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8 Kxd8 9.Ne1. I could make no impression (like most I guess) drawing or losing vs Berlin and so decided to try this. I have had some success and wins, roughly planning b3, c4, Bb2, f4, Nf3, often Na3-c2 in whatever order I can get away with and going from there, trying to slowly outplay my opponent and roll my kingside pawn majority forward. I find zero games with this move in the chess.com database (and everything else reasonable appears to have been tried) so I would like to know if it is a playable move for an equal game or if there is a line for a big black advantage which I don't see and my opponents have not found when I have played this. Cheers.
Refuting suggestions
Illundain Scandi is the top choice of Stockfish in the 2...Qxd5 .
Yeah, we can check, but Ilundain is definitely non-refutable, at least, with the current engine's state of art. Today, I'll start to check Strangemover's variation (since he was first to suggest something). 
Ok, let's check this strange move 9. Ne1 in Strangemover's Berlin Wall variation:
9. Ne1 Be6 10. Nc3 Kc8 11. b3 b6 12. Ne2 Kb7 13. Nf4 Be7 14. a4 g5 15. Nxe6 fxe6 16. a5 c5 17. Bb2 Rhd8 18. g4 Nd4 19. Kg2 Ne2 20. axb6 Nf4+ 21. Kg3 axb6 22. Rxa8 Rxa8 23. h4 h6 24. hxg5 hxg5 25. Nd3 Nxd3 26. cxd3 Kc6 27. Ra1 Rd8 28. Rd1 Kb5 29. Bc3 Rf8 30. f3 Ra8 31. f4 Rf8 32. Bd2 gxf4 33. Bxf4 Kb4 34. Rh1 Kxb3 35. Rh6 Kc3 36. Rxe6 Bd8 37. g5 Rg8 38. Kg4 Kxd3 39. Rh6 Ke4 40. e6 Rf8 41. Bg3 Kd5 42. g6 c4 43. Be1 Bf6 44. Rh7 Kxe6 45. Rxc7 Kd5 46. Bb4 Rd8 47. Kf5 Be5 48. Re7 Rf8+ 49. Rf7 Rg8 50. Re7 Bg7 51. Re6 c3 52. Rd6+ Kc4 53. Rcb6 c2 54. Rb7 c1=Q 55. Rc7+ Kxb4 55. Rxc1 draw (Nalimov tablebases) ½-½
Well, 9. Ne1 was a really bad move. It was a tense game with constant black's advantage. Black managed to win a pawn and even to promote it but all ended in a tablebase draw.
Differentiation2: The Sicilian Pin and Bronstein-Larsen are also definitely non-refutable. Imho, in order to refute something, the absolute value of engine evaluations should be (substantially) higher than 0.4: |ev|>>0.4.
Thank you Yigor, interesting. So Ne1 is not good but not bad enough to be forcibly losing. Perhaps in the Berlin all roads lead to Rome!
Thank you Yigor, interesting. So Ne1 is not good but not bad enough to be forcibly losing. Perhaps in the Berlin all roads lead to Rome!
... and Berlin Wall falls!
cjxchess16: But this Sveshnikov subvariation has quite good engine evaluations. I feel that there are no chances to refute it. 
StupidGM: Nice checkmate after a double check!! 
Corrections: 9...Rg8, 12. Nf5++ (it's good to underline it) and 13. Nxg7 #
Cochrane Gambit.
Cochrane Gambit.
That's a good idea! 
ChessOK evaluation -0.44, it could be refutable. However, the master statistics is in white's favour! 
I'll start to test it today.
Statistical evaluation ev =+0.08, sh = 1.85 | 1.71 = 3.56. It's a really sharp double-edged gambit.
Illundain Scandi is the top choice of Stockfish in the 2...Qxd5 .
Really? That's very interesting. Honestly, I expected Gubinsky-Melts to be the top.
Actually, it depends on the depth and number of displayed lines. For example, at d=20 and 1 line, it gives 3...Qe6+ as the top choice.
Refute 1... f5 Dutch against 1. c4 and 1. Nf3.
Yigor: Alright, then I have three other suggestions
Damiano Defense
Hammerschlag
Reti Opening: Drunken Knight Variation (1.Nf3 f6 2.d4 Nh6 3.e4 Nf7)
Okay, these openings will be the next in my refutung list. I akready wanted to understand it for Damiano:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/damiano-gambit-chigorin-gambit-vs-3-ne7
Refute 1... f5 Dutch against 1. c4 and 1. Nf3.
Impossible. Dutch is suboptimal in engine evaluations but too good to be refuted.
I have a couple ideas.
The Pin Variation of the Sicilian Defense, which is considered theoretically suspect.
The Ilundain Scandinavian (3...Qd8), and finally
The Bronstein-Larsen Caro-Kann
My game against Tom Murphy in 1987 was a Pin Sicilian, our last. He had been beating me with this so I booked up on it and actually prepared this win, knowing he'd react as he did:
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Nb5! Nxe4 7 Qg4! Bxc3? 8 bxc3 Nf6 9 Qxg7 Rg8 10 Nd6+ Ke7 11 Ba3!! Rxg7 12 Nf5+ Ke8 13 Nxe7# 1-0
Why not 6. e5!!, after 6...Nd5 7.Bd2 black doesn't have much hope for a win.
Because Murph likes to grab material as much as I like to sacrifice it.
6. Nb5 is much more my style. 6. e5 plays right into the hands of a positional player, though I'm sure the engines like it better.
@Strangemover What is Gubinsky-Melts ? ( I probably spelled wrong )
Gubinsky-Melts is 3.Qd6 in the Scandinavian I believe.
Hey, guys and gals, what would U like to refute ?!? Please give me reasonable ideas and I'll create test games to check it.