received an honour of being most discussed in the Entertainment
section category of youtube for 29th October 2007! Many thanks to
Carmelo Risquet for mentioning the Gunderam system in the Rest of
world game against Hkruse :)
I think Mikhail Tchigorin would have loved this idea.He used to play
1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 against the French...
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
My database shows 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qe7 being played at least as far
back as Jensen-Krezinsky, Gothenburg 1920. A Brazilian who gained the
IM title in 1972, Helder Camara, rated in the 2300-2400 range, seems
to have specialized in this line in the 1950s, '60s and '70s.
Altogether ChessBase Mega 2005 has 533 games with this line, White
scoring +220 -179 =134, which indicates the line not completely
without merit. Scanning the list, the most important game seemed to be
this from the 2004 FIDE World Championship
[Event "FIDE-Wch k.o."]
[White "Adams, Michael"]
[Black "Radjabov, Teimour"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qe7 3. Nc3 c6 4. d4 d6 5. Bc4 Bg4 6. dxe5 dxe5 7. h3
Bh5 8. g4
Bg6 9. Bg5 f6 10. Be3 Nd7 11. Nh4 O-O-O 12. Qe2 Nb6 13. Bb3 Qc7 14.
Bd2 Bc5 15.
O-O-O Ne7 16. Nf5 Nxf5 17. exf5 Bf7 18. Ne4 Bxb3 19. axb3 Be7 20. Ba5
Bxb6 axb6 22. Rd3 Rxd3 23. Qxd3 Rd8 24. Qe2 b5 25. Rd1 Rd4 26. c3 Rd5
Qb6 28. Kb1 Kb8 29. h4 Qd8 30. Kc2 Kc7 31. h5 Qa8 32. Kb1 Qg8 33. f3
Rd2 Qd7 35. Kc2 h6 36. Rd1 Kb8 37. Ra1 b6 38. Qe1 c5 39. bxc5 bxc5 40.
41. Rd1 Kc7 42. Rxd5 Qxd5 43. Qe3 Kb7 44. Nd2 Kb8 1/2-1/2
That was the only one involving very high-ranking players. There was
one other with a couple of near-2600s:
[Event "US op"]
[Site "Los Angeles"]
[White "Stripunsky, Alexander"]
[Black "Sulskis, Sarunas"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qe7 3. Bc4 d6 4. Nc3 c6 5. d4 h6 6. a4 g5 7. h3 Nd7 8.
9. Bb2 Ne7 10. Qd2 Ng6 11. Ne2 Be7 12. a5 O-O 13. h4 g4 14. h5 gxf3
Qxg6 16. gxf3 Bg5 17. f4 exf4 18. f3 d5 19. Bd3 dxe4 20. Bxe4 Qd6 21.
22. Rdg1 Kf8 23. Kb1 Nf6 24. Nc3 b5 25. Qh2 Rb8 26. Bd3 Ke7 27. Ne4
fxe4 Kd8 29. Qf2 Be6 30. Bc1 Bc4 31. e5 Qe6 32. Be4 f5 33. Bf3 Rb7 34.
35. Bxd5 cxd5 36. Bxf4 Rg7 37. Rf1 Reg8 38. Kb2 a6 39. Bxg5+ Rxg5 40.
41. Rc3 Kd7 42. Rc5 Rg4 43. Qh3 b4 44. Qd3 1-0
> 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
Checking my books on the BDG, the line 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6
4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 is known variously as the Tartakower Defense, or
the Tartakower-Gunderam. The Oxford Companion does not list any
"Gunderam variations" in its list of 1,327 opening lines.
> I imagine Mr. Gunderam must be long gone by now, although I couldn't
> find any reference to this.
If he is still alive, he would now be almost 103 years old; he was
born 26 November, 1904, according to Gaige.
> 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
I agree on his Ideenreichheit. I've had very good results over the
years with his Caro-Kann line.
> 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
I bought Gunderam's book, 'Neue Eroffnungswege" in 1966 --
unfortunately, it now resides in my storage locker, but, as I
remember, he called the ... Qe7 line "The Queen's Defense".
I think Gunderam may have a variation of the Four Pawns Attack in the
King's Indian named after him.
You may well be right -- I see that his "Neue Eröffnungswege" is in
the bibliography of "The Fearsome Four Pawns Attack" by Konikowski
and Soszynski (Russell Enterprises 2005). If I get a chance I'll try
to find the specific variation.
Thanks for the info, Steven and Mike. I'm always interested in
learning more about the minutiae of opening nomenclature.
And I'll chime in a thank you to Taylor and Mike... nice to be
discussing chess, not lawsuits.
Is an annotated description of Gunderam's Neue Eroef... book, in which
the Gunderam-Gedult (!) system , 4 Ps KID is mentioned; there is
apparently a Gunderam system in the Franco-Indian as well as
his ...De7 line in 1. e4 e5.
He apparently calls the De7 line the Gunderam "Komplex"..... not quite
sure what that means, but taxonomy is by no means a specialty of mine.
And very interesting that I mentioned Gedult in the same breath as
Gunderam, by chance I thought. I just remembered the wonderful
Schachcafe games that Gedult used to get published in the Schach-Echos
of the 1970s. Annofritzing them today would be a hoot, I am sure. Not
that anyone seems interested in such things.....
Zum Tode von Gerhart Gunderam
meaning that historical records may need updating....
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
> 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
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.
> 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