Talk:Gunderam Defense

Position shown

Moves(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qe7 3.Bc4 g6 4.Nc3 c6 5.d3 Bg7) and position don't match. Pawn on c6 or d6? ChessCreator (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to basic position after 2...Qe7 ChessCreator (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The sources (see in the article) stating that the Câmara Defense should be named as such appear weak to me for the moment. More reliable sources do not use this name:

"ChessGames"., Tartakower's Bréviaire des Echecs and van Seters' Guide Marabout des Echecs do not use a particular name
"Chess Theory". and "Bangor Chess Club". calls it the Gunderam defense

So I want to rename the article to Gunderam defense. The move has already been proposed for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Camara_Defense. Please give your opinion here or there. SyG (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There did not seem to be any opposition, here or there, after a week, so I've moved the page, per the above request. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SyG (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Reference

The link to chess-theory.com is dead. I don't know how to edit the references to note this. Perhaps someone more experienced can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.10.239 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose merging Brazilian Defense into Gunderam Defense. According to the leads of both articles, which use the wording "also known as", the two names are synonymous, and they are also treated as synonymous in a number of other online fora. Later on in the articles, the Brazilian seems to be described as a specific variant of the Gunderam, but I don't think that warrants two separate articles - and certainly not two articles that refer to each other as "also known as". Does anyone have objections to my proposal? Nikolaj1905 (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SyG, Lordstrahler, Ioannes Pragensis, and Roberto Cruz: I hope I have tagged everyone who has a stake in the discussion. I noticed that the two articles seem to have been merged previously, but that the merger was undone by Lordstrahler. I am curious to know the reason for this. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support This should be uncontroversial as they are the same opening. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per reasons listed above. :Ayyydoc (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. Since there have been no protests, I have merged the articles. This is the first time I have done a merge, so I apologize if I have made any errors. If you find an error, do not hesitate to correct it! Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]