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

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.

Alex Betaneli

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.