Mikhail Umansky vs Jonathan Penrose (1989)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Mikhail Umansky vs Jonathan Penrose
13th Correspondence World Championship (1989) (correspondence), ICCF, Nov-01
Queen's Gambit Accepted: Central Variation. McDonnell Defense (D20) · 1-0

White to move.

ANALYSIS [x]

1-0

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

FEN COPIED

Given 9 times; par: 57 [what's this?]

explore this opening	find similar games	629 more games of J Penrose
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: To flip the board (so black is on the bottom) press the "I" key on your keyboard.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Sep-09-03		ughaibu: Umansky's play is very simple, quite nice.

Jan-29-04		ughaibu: This kind of play is Capablanca or Fischer taken to it's limits. I've changed my mind about my first comment, it's impressive and extremely strong play but from as early as possible Umansky dampens things to such an extent that the game becomes too one-sided to retain any excitement.

Jan-30-04		Benjamin Lau: Does white already have a winning advantage after 23. Rxe6? It doesn't seem like it at first to me because white has the initiative and better pawn structure, but it doesn't look sufficient to win with accurate defense. Did Penrose blunder somewhere after or is 23. Rxe6 really a won game? This is correspondence after all, the final no less, so it would seem that the chance blunder would be unlikely.

Jan-30-04		ughaibu: I think the advantage is a lot more than it seems. The weakness of the queenside keeps black's knight on b6 for defense, white has a 3-2 majority on the kingside which with the queens on gives him a much safer king's position, that combined with effectively an extra knight is enough, I reckon.

Jan-31-04		Benjamin Lau: I guess correspondence chess has a much higher standard than classic and lightning chess. If this were a position in a classic or especially blitz game I would think that it would be difficult but most of us could probably hold on or at least make life very difficult for the opponent but Umansky gives the impression that winning this is not very hard.

Feb-06-04		ughaibu: Chessgames.com: I did a search for Umansky and Penrose and got the reply "Umansky beat Penrose 1-0 Sorry there are no games" ???

May-25-06		cotdt: Umansky's positional style in correspondence chess is the best I've ever seen. It's probably the future of chess, where the tiniest of advantages can be converted into a victory whereas in OTB chess observers can call almost any position a draw and end up being right. At the highest levels of correspondence chess, draws are actually less common than in OTB chess, even though the quality of play is much higher. I really don't think Chess is in any danger of being played out, especially with the computer engine's very poor performance in correspondence chess against human+engine. Anderssen is also a great correspondence chess player, I'd like to see him pitted against Umansky.

Jan-11-08		znprdx: Perhaps someone might kindly explain the notion of 'correspondence chess' in the digital age. It seems like an anomalous anachronism. Ultimately at best it seems to reduce to some kind of strange variation of Zeno's Paradox.

Jan-11-08		whiteshark: What's your problem, <znprdx>?

Feb-20-08		whiteshark: Umansky thought that <12...Bd7> was better as in Kasparov vs Huebner, 1989, although there were some improvements possible in black's play. :D

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CORRESPONDENCE. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.