Originally posted by EinZweiDrei The sad thing is, one of his opponents might have just successfully applied the dead man's defense. [Hey, I didn't make the first joke.]
this was definitely a loss for the chess world.
Occupational Hazard for CC players, passing on during a game!
The ICCF seem to be quite slow announcing this given that he has two exhibition games still in progress against Gert Jan Timmerman on the ICCF Server. Timmerman has been using all his time, and has just (guiltily?) moved in the games...
Umansky was not one of the World Correspondence Champions I have really followed so I am not sure which is regarded as his best CC game. I enjoyed his KG win as black in the previous exhibition match.
Originally posted by Thabtos Naw, those old school CC guys spend all their time thinking about their moves, oblivious to the world around them.
You could challenge them to a 3 day a move game and they'd tell you that they don't play bullet chess.
Three days a move (or any days a move) are likely strange to them. I know I found this idea of so many days for a single move odd when I started here. Old school CC players are more used to systems like 40 days for 10 moves, cumulative. Sort of like OTB chess but s l o w e r.
I am currently engaged in what might be thought of as a CC blitz tournament, 10 days for the whole game plus one day per move. We even have a variation of the Fischer time increment thing. Exciting stuff.
Umansky is one of the players I have looked at over the years, he played Robatsch/Modern/Rat quite often so his games are instructive for anyone wishing to play that dodgy defence in CC.
Just looked at Harding's profile on the lad in his
64 Great Chess Games (masterpieces of postal play).
Hans Berliner states Umansky's style was very much like Tal.
Which is reason enough I think for some enterprising lad to
bring out a copy of his best postal games.
My one reservation about such a book is that correspondence games
tend to get heavy over anlaysed. Though Harding does it just right in
his book showing a Umnasky game [No.47] but in other games [Game 42]
he goes way over the top and too deep. (my opinion).
It's a thankless task adding light notes to a GM correspondence game.
You have to comment on a move theses guys have ripped to pieces over
days/weeks and using a box is useless.
You will either end up with long 'ugly' variations or get completely wrong
evaluations about the postion.
So the writer not only has to dig out the tactical shots but also spot the big picture.
You do not have any OTB blunders to guide you (I'm talking about games of
the level Umansky played). The blunders are hidden.
Rampant Chess When I asked the GM's and IM's to send me 5 of their best games Dougie
Bryson (a CC. GM) sent me two CC game. One a long Rook ending. 🙁
I know my limitatios. GM Correspondence are hard to note up, throw in
a Rook ending and I'm sunk.
So I talked Dougie into giving me a good Queen sac OTB game instead.
Even than I moaned about having to one CC game.
I advised the reader to send me their address and I would send them
one move of the game every week so they would get a 'feel' for it. 🙂
When I have more time after Christmas I'm going to go through some of this
lad's games.
I have a million game CC database somewhere. Hope to unearth some crackers.
(Hey spot the pun - 'Christmas' & 'Crackers'. Boy am I good.). 😉
Originally posted by greenpawn34 You have to comment on a move theses guys have ripped to pieces over
days/weeks and using a box is useless.
It’s highly likely that all of the top ICCF players make heavy use of computers in order to decide on their moves. So why would an annotator find using a box useless? I think both will use computers to help weed out bad moves. In some cases for the annotator, the job will involve identifying the main variations with the computer and then trying to make sense of them.
Regarding the thread itself, Umansky was indeed a great player. I remember looking over his games from this incredible performance:
Originally posted by Varenka It’s highly likely that all of the top ICCF players make heavy use of computers in order to decide on their moves. So why would an annotator find using a box useless? I think both will use computers to help weed out bad moves. In some cases for the annotator, the job will involve identifying the main variations with the computer and then trying to make se ...[text shortened]... games from this incredible performance:
Originally posted by EinZweiDrei ...There was really a CC player named Sloth in that tournament?
🙂 Yes, and all players were ICCF World Champion at some point. But that didn't stop Umansky winning with 7/8!! Incredible score at that level of chess.
"It’s highly likely that all of the top ICCF players make heavy use of
computers in order to decide on their moves."
Most likely they do. But this lad was World Champion in 1996.
Computers have advanced incredibly since then.
An anotator should try to explain what were the players up to.
(Not what a modern computer considers is the best move or plan).
Some CC games I've looked played in the 60's and 70's were
extremly complex.
It's tough work digging out what they were up to.
Dropping a box into the pot means you also have to figure what the
box is up to (and these things can shoot off at all tangents).
You have to get into the game. feel it, try to see what they saw.
A box will lead you up the garden path, round the pole and dump
you in the duck pond with an evalutaion on 0.89. (what does that mean?)
But this lad was World Champion in 1996. Computers have advanced incredibly since then.
Kasparov was losing to computers in 1994 (25 min for game) so we know they were very strong at chess in 1996, regardless of how much stronger they are now.
Some CC games I've looked played in the 60's and 70's were extremly complex.
Pick one of these games. You annotate without using a box and I'll do so with a box.
Dropping a box into the pot means you also have to figure what the box is up to
"Also"? Why do you assume that the box never draws a parallel with what a top player thinks? Some positions in chess have a single objectively best way to continue. Computers and humans may arrive at the solution in different ways, but that doesn't stop me looking at the solution given by the computer and then working backwards, filling in some human reasoning.
Mikhail Umansky 1952-2010
19 Dec '10 17:04
Back to Top