On Oct 30, 2:30 pm, SBD wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:58 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:



I'm not sure I understand the reference to Gunderam. As far as I'm
aware, the only Gunderam system is in the Panov-Botvinnik Attack line
of the Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6, and now 5.c5
is the defining move of the Gunderam. Is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qe7 also named
for Gunderam?

I think so, and since I don't waste my time on videos and such, I
haven't looked at this. But there is also at least one Gunderam
defense in the BDG that I know of. Its the defense with Bf5 correct?

I imagine Mr. Gunderam must be long gone by now, although I couldn't
find any reference to this. He was one of chess's most entertaining
characters (David Gedult was another); in the 1970s and I think into
the 80s I had a nice correspondence with him. He was probably no
stronger than 2000 or so, but was, to use a German phrase,
"Ideenreich." Ah for the days of the Gemeinde (and no crap like
youtube!).

I had always been advised that Qe7 was a very poor move. I have to now
rethink that. It is rather odd and makes one believe your opponent
doesn't know what they are doing. It may well create an opportunity
for a suprise if your opponent is unprepared

On Oct 31, 1:27 pm, Rob wrote:

I had always been advised that Qe7 was a very poor move. I have to now
rethink that. It is rather odd and makes one believe your opponent
doesn't know what they are doing. It may well create an opportunity
for a suprise if your opponent is unprepared


Well it is a poor move without the proper motivation. Like anything
else, such "poor moves" that don't lead to an immediate loss
(checkmate, loss of material) have to be evaluated based on their
motivation. I never laughed so hard as when I played my Elephant on
ICC and a snotty 1700 says, "Well, I misplayed your sh**ty opening,
else I would have won!" (he lost 5 games to it that day, of 5 with
that opening)

There is also an interesting Wiki entry on this, as well as its use by
the Brazilian IM, and his motivation - to transpose into a KID type
position even though the game begins 1. e4. I don't have Gunderam's
book but certainly wish I had it and Camara's article. It would be
interesting to see if their motivations behind Qe7 were the same.

On Oct 31, 12:25 pm, SBD wrote:

I don't have Gunderam's
book but certainly wish I had it and Camara's article. It would be
interesting to see if their motivations behind Qe7 were the same.

As I remember, Gunderam advocated a number of dodgy gambits and some
stuff involving early ... f5 and/or ... g5, sometimes sacrificing the
QP.