The Burden of Youth
Recently I’m told one of our top players made some disparaging remarks about a predecessor. It wasn’t the first time it happened nor, I’m sure, will it be the last.
Youth often feels a burden when they mature under the shadow of those who have gone before. It’s only human nature. We feel a need to assert ourselves, and grow weary of the tales of past giants.
The player in question is certainly an excellent player: In anyone’s list of the best players to have called the state home over the past century, he should certainly figure to be in the top 20, perhaps even top 10. I mean no disparagement of him. But the problem is, the other player would be on the same list.
Among other things, the charge is offered that he was a rabbit-basher, someone who lived off beating weaker players. This is no better than a half-truth. Our fair state doesn’t produce many high-rated players, so top players have two choices: travel or settle for playing the few good players who venture here.
Years ago, there were many more good players coming here, but beginning in the late 80’s the state was a desert of chess competition. And for a player who isn’t willing to put his real career on hold (or turn pro) the only viable option was to settle for what you could get.
But I called it a half-truth, which clearly implies part of it was false. This rabbit-basher, faced with what little 2200+ opposition that showed up, managed to log a record of 17 wins, 18 draws, and 7 losses. (This in the last decade before his retirement from the scene, long after he’d earned his senior master rating.) Scoring 62% against masters hardly is evidence that one doesn’t deserve a master’s rating, or being remembered fondly. Add in to this the National Blitz Championship Title he won, and we start to get an entirely different picture from the one put forward in the remarks that triggered this observation.
As I said, I understand where the comments come from. They’re just not accurate.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I would never call a former top player a rabbit basher because it is never easy to win a title or to become a senior master. And we of course have to acknowledge what a player achieved
But there is a “but”
1)
if we are talking about today and if we see chess as a sport one can not just retire and still claim he is a player of master strength or the highest rated player in the state. As an expert player myself I know perfectly well what happens if I do not play for a while or “do not put enough time in chess”
2)
The ratingsystem has CLEARLY changed in the past few years. Many players lost about 200 rating points even
if they wouldn’t have lost a single point looking at their skills.
3)
To keep playes in the rating list even if they didn’t play for years is a clear mistake. Even the FIDE
(an organisation not known for progressive decisions) sees players after only two or three games in five years as “inactive”
Talking about things that are not accurate – Maybe this is why the young player made his remarks
(can’t be me I’m not young enough)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
You make good points, Steffen, and as far as they go I agree with you. But they are based on some incorrect assumptions:
1) The retired player makes no claims about current strength. As far as I can tell, he’s only been at 1-2 chess club meetings in the last 5-7 years. Knowing him, I would say he would join you in saying he’s not as sharp as he used to be. In fact, in the year or two before he stopped playing he had to have noticed he was slipping a little, due probably to a declining interest and a lack of competition.
2) The USCF has tweaked the rating system a few times over the past years. The last couple of times the intent was to correct the deflation that was occurring. Ken Sloan would explain it better than I, but suffice it to say the rating system is not now, nor has it ever been, useful for comparing absolute numbers from different years. I may write a longer piece about that subject later.
3) The state Top 100 list I publish, for example, uses as a requirement the player has played at least one event in the preceding 12 months. The retired player I’m speaking of does not appear on the one currently published (based on the August numbers, I need to produce another one based on December numbers) and hasn’t appeared on any list I’ve produced since I started pruning inactive players and non-USCF members from it.
I don’t know what triggered the remarks. The reason I’ve been so cloaked about the names involved is that I wasn’t part of the exchange so I have no firsthand knowledge of the context. The major point the post makes lies in the first two paragraphs; the rest is simply comment on the historical record, something I do feel qualified to comment upon.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
At a personal level, of course I prefer playing IMs and GMs instead of A class players. The only player I know who lived off beating the lower rated folk (and reached 2400 without ever getting a FIDE rating) is Dave Penkalski. Although I applaud to such an accomplishment, one has to wonder what the joy is.
Alex Betaneli
December 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
“The only player I know who lived off beating the lower rated folk (and reached 2400 without ever getting a FIDE rating) is Dave Penkalski.”
I don’t know why FIDE doesn’t have a rating for Dave. I know for a fact he played in at least two FIDE rated events that were held here in Wisconsin before he reached 2400, and there were probably more.
As for the first part of your comment, well, I’m sorry to say this Alex but your ignorance is showing. It’s not a major fault, and it’s completely understandable. Dave’s rise to 2400 happened long before you arrived on the scene, and by the time you got here, Dave had apparently given up on chess as a serious activity and played only occasionally and for fun.
I suspect you know as well as I that you don’t rise to 2400 simply by beating class A players. Among Dave’s “victims” on his rise to the top of Wisconsin chess were Michael Brooks (2500+), Curt Brasket (a long-standing midwest master) and Roman Levit. GM Arthur Bisgiuer said after watching the way Dave scrambled off the hook under extreme time pressure in their 1987 game “the man is a tactical genius!” (The game ended in a draw, but not before the GM tried mightily and failed to bring home his edge over Penkalski. And while I mention draws I should probably mention a draw with Al Chow, as well.) This list of players isn’t meant to be exhaustive; for one thing, I don’t have access to the crosstables for the events outside of the state he played in back when he was more serious about chess. But it wasn’t unusual for for him to go an entire tournament without seeing more than 1 player below 2000/2100. The first tournament to push his rating over 2400 included a win over a 2300+ player. In the space of little over a year he went from the mid-2200’s to 2440. You don’t do that by just beating Class A players.
1991, the year he won the state championship, he played only one player under 2000, and scored 4.5/5. Roman Levit that year played three class A players, including drawing with one, but I wouldn’t characterize him the way you have Dave. You’re welcome to whatever opinion you have about the level of his play, opinions are like feet: everyone has two and they all stink. But get your facts right, OK?
It was fun watching Dave play. He was about the only player at the club who could stand toe-to-toe with Roman (Levit) at blitz (in fact, he had a plus score against him). He’s gone now. But we should still acknowledge what he did, even if we wish he would have done more.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
This is a fascinating read. Living in the UK I never knew the player you’re talking about but he sounds like a very strong player and I wish I’d had the chance to pick his brains for content for my chess course!
February 17th, 2008 at 1:24 am
hello everyone. i want to have a little fun with mr betaneli’s earlier comment. he mentioned preferring to play IMs and GMs to A players which is understandable (considering the facts) and should be lauded. however he has not made his living playing IMs and GMs. in fact your record against IMs and GMs mr betaneli (in uscf rated tournaments) is not very good in the win percentage department. so what you’re really saying is you prefer to lose a game of chess rather than win one. chess is ultimately a form of self-flagellation, i concur. let me expose you to some statistics. if we equate a GM with having a rating of roughly 2500 and above your record against this beast is 4 wins 48 loses 18 draws or roughly a 5% winning percentage. i don’t want to calculate the performance rating if that were one tournament because you might get upset. btw i hope to one day play a GM myself someday(just between you and me i’ll be playing for the draw) back to the statistics. now your record against IMs is a little better if you count an IM as roughly 2412-2500 again your record is 4-35-4 or about a 9% winning percentage which means out of every 11 games you can count on one surprise victory. you might have noticed i’ve skewed the statistics some because your record against IMs rated 2400 to 2411 is 4-3-2 an unexpected jump in your level of your play strength which i didn’t want to count. okay lets count it your record then is 8-38-6 against these scowling ne’r-do-wells now your win percentage skyrockets to 15% shame on me for shamelessly manipulating the data. okay now we come to the vaunted A player the player you dismiss as worthy of your joy and for good reason. your record is absolutely frightening against this meek nervous and helpless animal an astounding 195-10-52. i think you can garner from that statistic that you’ve lived a little ratings-wise off the A player even if it is only 1 ratings point per victory. someday when i’m an A player and have to play you you might wanna make sure you have all the pieces in their proper place befoe you push your clock because adjusting that absent king knight before the game might be a problem anyway this was all in fun i consider you the most active king of wisconsin chess and your work with the youth there is inestimable. you doing 2700+ performance work in that department and while doing so you’re making life for us lesser rated players just a little bit harder. thank you
March 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
It’s interesting how the posts have changed, backfiring on ol’ Betaneli there. But, I’ve got a few thoughts here regarding Parinda’s research and the main point as well.
First off, I think the numbers really shouldn’t matter, Parinda. Sure, Betanelli played about 100 more games against class A players but, we should note too that there are more of them around. As Arlen said there used to be many more 2000 – 2100 rated players in the days of Dave Penalski. Is it just loathing for Betaneli that you took so much pride in crunching the numbers… to expose him?
Secondly, as one playing in tournaments below Betaneli (who usually is always at board 1 and I am at 15, 20 or something), I see it also. There are more players of my strength (1400 – 1600) than of his… In fact, probably the majority of the players are of my level. It’s historical I think, players aren’t the same today. People have more things to distract themselves with and chess sadly is losing its appeal. Although I have little care for his teams and coaching for that matter, you’ve got to respect him. It CANNOT be Alex’s fault that the tournaments are “weaker” these days, perhaps we lower rated players need to step it up.
I also agree that it would be impossible, or just down right far-fetched beyond the cookiest narcissist’s imagination to build a rating that strong (2400+) off of players rated BELOW him. It’s simple, almost like yahoo chess, if you beat a weaker player you get less points. Sad, I know… it’s disappointing to play an amazingly difficult game and pull off a decisive demolition … and for only a measly 5 – 10 points. It sucks. But, when you chop down the bigger trees, that’s when you notice big has happened. You can anihilate class A players, or B C D or unrateds all you want, but I think it would be exhausting to anyone, and far too repetitive for anyone’s liking.
Now, maybe Alex should play in out-of-state tournaments or even international events. Right, Parinda? He could leave and then the tournaments would get weaker. Maybe he’d get better playing his “dominating” foes, against IMs and GMs. It’s a double-edged sword I think.
Life for us shouldn’t be harded because Alex is at the top of the boards… we should try to take some , or all of his points. Shoot, for that matter….
Arlen Walker’s points.
Mike Wierzbicki’s points.
Ashish’s points!
If Heinsen returns, his points.
We have to be a bit more competitive I think, in general. We cant be scared of Alex, or anyone else, it’s just chess. A loss is disappointing but revenge is oh so sweet. I think you’ve got to define the situation, Parinda, before you point your finger everywhere.
Thanks,
Zimbo
257 for A
164 for IM + GM
March 6th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
disregard the numbers below my signature – they were my “notes” to tally up Parinda’s numbers.