| |
Main
Date: 05 Jun 2008 10:35:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Chess Dopes
|
More doping in chess to accommodate WADA. Chess will be dope tested in
Beijing, even though it is admitted to be no point to it. It is unclear
about American players, since USCF had said 'no dope testing here', but on
previous occassions did not insist that US players overseas should not be
tested during chess Olympiads, for example.
Phil Innes
---
First World Mind Sports Games to be held in Beijing in October
The Associated Press
Published: June 4, 2008
ATHENS, Greece : The Olympics and Paralympics won't be the only global
multi-sports events in Beijing this year.
The Chinese capital will host the first World Mind Sports Games from Oct.
3-18, featuring five events and - yes - doping controls.
About 3,000 competitors from more than 100 countries will be competing for
35 gold medals in chess, bridge, draughts (checkers), Go and Xiang Qi
(Chinese chess), the International Mind Sports Association annnounced
Wednesday at a sports conference in Athens.
"We clearly consider ourselves a sport," IMSA president Jose Damiani said.
"Our events are no different from physical sports. They are all sports."
Damiani said there are 1 billion people around the world who play the games,
which are represented by 500 national sports federations.
The bridge and chess federations are already recognized by the International
Olympic Committee, but that doesn't entitle them to become Olympic sports.
Still, the mind sports group hopes the IOC will eventually accept them into
the Olympic program.
"We hope that this event in Beijing will be so important and so big that the
IOC will understand that they need us," said Georgios Makropoulos, vice
president of the global chess federation.
Meantime, competitors will have to undergo doping checks just like Olympic
athletes.
The bridge and chess federations have signed up to the World Anti-Doping
Code and do their own testing, with no positive results so far.
Damiani said there definitely will be doping controls for chess and bridge
in Beijing, and probably for the other events, too.
"We are following the (WADA) instructions, but we don't see where there
could be drugs to make you play better," Makropoulos said.
Source: International Herald Tribune
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 16:21:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
On Jun 9, 2:15 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Well, let them decide for themselves what is 'sloppy'. You sound like a paid
> hack, a la Hanken.
Jealous because some folks actually get money for their writing? BTW,
how much money do you pay Chessville to post your drivel?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jun 2008 17:34:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4ea1a93a-6198-4186-bb01-b9bd2521478c@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 2:15 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, let them decide for themselves what is 'sloppy'. You sound like a
>> paid
>> hack, a la Hanken.
>
> Jealous because some folks actually get money for their writing? BTW,
> how much money do you pay Chessville to post your drivel?
Why do you want to know? You want some regardless of your own worth? Stay
where you are!
If you had any worth at all it would be the ability to talk about drugs in
chess which is the topic here. Whosoever would pay you for your chess
writing is either as inert to what goes on as you are, or merely corrupt.
If you, after 6 years of trying, can't write to any topic except to play the
fat arsed [poor me!] nazi boy, seek no sympathy here!@
You demonstrate your indifference to chess issues with your every post. And
those who do not notice you, are scared in case you stalk them, right,
fatty?
Who have you not stalked and disgustingly abused who disagreed with you?
;)
Cordially,
'The Profiler'
Vermont
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 13:25:35
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
test
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 14:01:11
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
nobody wrote:
>
> test
Is it just me?
http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive_show_message_iframe.php?David+336#feature2
this (position of the week - current 'chessville') is a problem credited
to Nabakov, where you're asked to retract White's last move & then move
again resulting in mate. ie, instead of d7xNc8=Rc8 the solution is given
as d7xRe8=Ne8# ? Remember, there should now no longer be a rook on c8,
so Qb8xNe8, the pieces get exchanged & Black wins easily. Maybe helpbot
can spot something I've missed or Phil perhaps - pls. help, it's bugging
me..
nobody.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 21:11:55
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
In article <[email protected] >,
nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> Remember, there should now no longer be a rook on c8
After the retraction, it's not a white rook on c8, but a black knight,
so if 1. dxe8(N)#, Black can't play 1...Qxe8 like you suggested.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 12:19:50
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
Frisco Del Rosario wrote:
> After the retraction, it's not a white rook on c8, but a black knight,
> so if 1. dxe8(N)#, Black can't play 1...Qxe8 like you suggested.
Ah yes! A visual lapse on my part - but it's all clear now. Thankyou so
much for taking the trouble. Very kind..
nobody.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 14:37:29
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
Chess One wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e63f32ac-35ab-4daf-8459-7e931fa379fc@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The issue for USCF is currently if they will object to drug-testing
> >> /outside/ the US. Previous Fide delegates have not been exactly clear on
> >> this issue- indeed, many have acted in a contrary way to USCF's
> >> ostensible
> >> directives, and without any check on what they do.
> >>
> >> This is the issue. Otherwise it must stand that USCF speaks with forked
> >> tongue.
> >>
> >> USCF themselves are numb to such questions, and any further
> >> clarification.
> >>
> >> Phil Innes
> >
> >
> > They're not numb to it, but there isn't universal agreement either.
> > That's why the Delegates passed that somewhat weasel-worded motion in
> > 2001.
>
> I think the agreement is pretty universal among players, that dope testing
> is a demeaning waste of time, and nothing to do with any problem that
> exists in chess.
Unless you define "players" to mean "players who agree with me," this
is clearly false. The USCF Delegates are players (most of them are
there for the U.S. Open), and they were unable to reach an agreement
on stronger language. Note that I am not challenging the assertion
that drug testing in chess is a bad idea, only your sloppy thinking on
the subject.
> Another actual problem has been with national chess coaches who are not
> obliged to take any sort of background test, and are not even required to
> provide character references, or state if they have offended the law -
> especially in such critical areas as scholastics.
>
> USCF don't seem to think its their business to do this either - whereas it
> must be the only remaining organisation to do with children in the USA who
> do not screen those it provides titles to.
>
> Phil innes
How is this remotely relevant to the thread? It's relevant to your
pathological hatred of the USCF, but, really, nobody cares.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 15:15:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:e63f32ac-35ab-4daf-8459-7e931fa379fc@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> The issue for USCF is currently if they will object to drug-testing
>> >> /outside/ the US. Previous Fide delegates have not been exactly clear
>> >> on
>> >> this issue- indeed, many have acted in a contrary way to USCF's
>> >> ostensible
>> >> directives, and without any check on what they do.
>> >>
>> >> This is the issue. Otherwise it must stand that USCF speaks with
>> >> forked
>> >> tongue.
>> >>
>> >> USCF themselves are numb to such questions, and any further
>> >> clarification.
>> >>
>> >> Phil Innes
>> >
>> >
>> > They're not numb to it, but there isn't universal agreement either.
>> > That's why the Delegates passed that somewhat weasel-worded motion in
>> > 2001.
>>
>> I think the agreement is pretty universal among players, that dope
>> testing
>> is a demeaning waste of time, and nothing to do with any problem that
>> exists in chess.
>
>
> Unless you define "players" to mean "players who agree with me,"
Unless you mean to have an honest conversation, then you would not have cut
the very thing you question!@
Indeed, you rather prove my point that the only people in favor of chess
testing are politicos, who seem willing to degrade players for money - and
what that money will do is apparently to popularise a degraded form of
something - that seems absolutely contrary to the sense of actual chess
players, whose enjoyment of the game does not reside in how many people play
it, but for some intrinsic value they discover while playing it.
> this
> is clearly false. The USCF Delegates are players (most of them are
> there for the U.S. Open), and they were unable to reach an agreement
> on stronger language.
Quite so - only the politicos object, make noise about drug testing, and
those who report them can only euphemisticly cover that stance by talk of
'stronger language.
Just say No!@ That is strong enough. drug testing VOLUNTARILY associates
chess with drugs. That is the gloos here, and the equivocation of the
political classes in chess.
> Note that I am not challenging the assertion
> that drug testing in chess is a bad idea, only your sloppy thinking on
> the subject.
Well, let them decide for themselves what is 'sloppy'. You sound like a paid
hack, a la Hanken.
You discuss no issue, and chose to call me 'sloppy' because I say that only
politicos are for drug testing, while affirming the very truth of this in
this message.
Phil Innes
>
>> Another actual problem has been with national chess coaches who are not
>> obliged to take any sort of background test, and are not even required to
>> provide character references, or state if they have offended the law -
>> especially in such critical areas as scholastics.
>>
>> USCF don't seem to think its their business to do this either - whereas
>> it
>> must be the only remaining organisation to do with children in the USA
>> who
>> do not screen those it provides titles to.
>>
>> Phil innes
>
>
> How is this remotely relevant to the thread? It's relevant to your
> pathological hatred of the USCF, but, really, nobody cares.
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 15:37:37
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable
> >> alternative. Since national chess federations hold something close
> >> to a monopoly on the organization of chess tournaments, there is no
> >> reasonable alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't
> >> class `not playing' as a reasonable alternative.
> >
> > I'm not quite clear on what you mean by that. Perhaps matters are
> > different in Europe, but the USCF _organizes_ very few tournaments.
>
> No, usually the tournaments are organized independently, to the local
> federation's standards.
>
> > I would also agree that _if_ the USCF decreed drug testing in
> > tournaments, we'd have a problem. But that's a low-probability
> > counterfactual, and I can't see the point of debating it as a pure
> > hypothetical.
>
> Ah. In that case, we were talking at crossed purposes -- I thought
> that was precisely the scenario that was under discussion.
>
>
> Dave.
Well ... There's no USCF rule requiring that the loser of each game be
flogged. There's no USCF rule requiring all players to compete naked.
There's no USCF rule requiring that all players keep score in
Cyrillic. All of these would be very bad rules, and if there were any
serious prospect of their being adopted I'd want to argue against it.
But there isn't, so I don't. The prospect of drug-testing for chess
players in the U.S. may be _slightly_ higher than those -- but not
much.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 15:31:16
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
Chess One wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:07f605ff-0ae6-45c0-85b8-a52a96fdf14b@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >>
> >> Fide have started running rated tournaments here, and btw, with their own
> >> rating system. I also think Fide will not suggest drug testing, but
> >> simply
> >> do it. But that is beside the point since the direct issue is what, of
> >> anything, USCF have 'urged' onto Fide in respect of US players.
> >>
> >> Phil Innes
> >
> > I think there's one organizer (maybe two) who wanted to run a FIDE-
> > rated tournament that wasn't USCF-rated. It's insignificant, and it
> > shows every sign of staying that way. None of the real organizers in
> > the U.S. have shown any interest in this or in drug testing. And it's
> > worth noting that FIDE rating fees -- the ones FIDE charges the
> > national federations, not the ones the USCF charges organizers -- are
> > _very high_ by U.S. standards. "Creeping FIDE-ism" is sheer paranoia.
> >
> > I agree that the Delegates ought to have taken a stronger line on
> > this, as a matter of principle. But as a practical matter, it seem
> > pretty minor.
>
> It had previously seemed pretty minor.
>
> The issue for USCF is currently if they will object to drug-testing
> /outside/ the US. Previous Fide delegates have not been exactly clear on
> this issue- indeed, many have acted in a contrary way to USCF's ostensible
> directives, and without any check on what they do.
>
> This is the issue. Otherwise it must stand that USCF speaks with forked
> tongue.
>
> USCF themselves are numb to such questions, and any further clarification.
>
> Phil Innes
They're not numb to it, but there isn't universal agreement either.
That's why the Delegates passed that somewhat weasel-worded motion in
2001. It hasn't come up again because a) it's not a major issue in
this country. (no organizer anywhere in the U.S. has suggested doing
it), and b) the USCF has had more important matters to deal with.
Personally, I'd prefer a more robust condemnation of drug testing, but
FIDE has plenty of other problems, and it's not up to us to solve
them.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 10:56:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e63f32ac-35ab-4daf-8459-7e931fa379fc@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> The issue for USCF is currently if they will object to drug-testing
>> /outside/ the US. Previous Fide delegates have not been exactly clear on
>> this issue- indeed, many have acted in a contrary way to USCF's
>> ostensible
>> directives, and without any check on what they do.
>>
>> This is the issue. Otherwise it must stand that USCF speaks with forked
>> tongue.
>>
>> USCF themselves are numb to such questions, and any further
>> clarification.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> They're not numb to it, but there isn't universal agreement either.
> That's why the Delegates passed that somewhat weasel-worded motion in
> 2001.
I think the agreement is pretty universal among players, that dope testing
is a demeaning waste of time, and nothiing to do with any problem that
exists in chess.
The 'non-universal' aspect of affairs only exists with chess politicans.
USCF have successively installed Fide reps who actually advocate /for/
testing.
For me the level of debate [and why I said USCF is numb to any body else]
was Jim Eade arguing for testing, and against Seirawan, who he told to f***
off, for stating his views.
> It hasn't come up again because a) it's not a major issue in
> this country. (no organizer anywhere in the U.S. has suggested doing
> it), and b) the USCF has had more important matters to deal with.
Ths issue I addressed above has to do with US players and teams overseas.
Does anyone know the current stance on this? Susan Polgar [of all people]
was tested at the 04 Olympiad, and USCF didn't raise a peep.
> Personally, I'd prefer a more robust condemnation of drug testing, but
> FIDE has plenty of other problems, and it's not up to us to solve
> them.
Another actual problem has been with national chess coaches who are not
obliged to take any sort of background test, and are not even required to
provide character references, or state if they have offended the law -
especially in such critical areas as scholastics.
USCF don't seem to think its their business to do this either - whereas it
must be the only remaining organisation to do with children in the USA who
do not screen those it provides titles to.
Phil innes
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 10:21:43
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
On Jun 6, 2:54 am, [email protected] wrote:
> What the Delegates actually voted was:
>
> "46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
> unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
> where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
> Games. (2001)"
>
> Kind of wimpy, but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
> laziness and stupidity will cover it. There is no mention of drug
> testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
> drug testing in U.S. tournaments.
>
> What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
> make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
> dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
> Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
> voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
In order to get chess viewed as an actual sport, and having a chance
of becoming an Olympic event, I don't see the problem with having
players do drug testing. I am perfectly aware that steroids, etc...
won't impact play, which means that players should come up clean,
right?
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 22:22:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> In order to get chess viewed as an actual sport, and having a chance
> of becoming an Olympic event, I don't see the problem with having
> players do drug testing. I am perfectly aware that steroids, etc...
> won't impact play, which means that players should come up clean,
> right?
Hell, no! Look at all the times that sportsmen have failed drugs
tests because they took some kind of medicine because of a medical
condition. Asthma inhalers. Creams for skin rashes and inflamations.
Cough medicines. Diuretics. All kinds of perfectly innocent
medications contain substances that would make you fail a sporting
drugs test. It's ludicrous to ask chess players to get medical
exemptions for these things and have to watch their medication like a
hawk (IIRC, people have failed tests because the ingredients of their
prescription medicines changed from one batch to the next) when
absolutely none of these substances enhances chess performance.
You can add to that the question of whether chess players should be
penalized for recreational (and very much performance-inhibiting) drug
use. But that applies to all sports equally.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mouldy Monk (TM): it's like a man
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of God but it's starting to grow
mushrooms!
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 16:42:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8e8c509b-e42b-49c7-9f14-1dc87b18cd7e@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 6, 2:54 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> What the Delegates actually voted was:
>>
>> "46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
>> unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
>> where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
>> Games. (2001)"
>>
>> Kind of wimpy, but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
>> laziness and stupidity will cover it. There is no mention of drug
>> testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
>> drug testing in U.S. tournaments.
>>
>> What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
>> make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
>> dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
>> Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
>> voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
>
> In order to get chess viewed as an actual sport, and having a chance
> of becoming an Olympic event, I don't see the problem with having
> players do drug testing.
You don't understand that undertaking drug testing admits there is something
to test for? You don't think associating our game with drug-inculcalted
sports is unwise?
> I am perfectly aware that steroids, etc...
> won't impact play, which means that players should come up clean,
> right?
Clean of such substances as caffeine? Right?
It all bollocks from start to finish, Rich. The only reason Fide whores
after Olympic status [ a lost cause ] is for the organisation money in it.
It never occured to Fide to declare that chess is a drug-free game, and that
is its major benefit - and for a world infested with drugs that this would
not be some minor benefit and distinction of our game.
That is because the people who run Fide do not care to actually observe what
goes on, neither have they any real confidence in what I write above, since
it does not entail cheap mega-bucks.
If you think Fide has more finesse than that, it never had it.
Phil Innes
> - Rich
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 05:28:17
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most
> > obvious) make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess
> > players is a dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured
> > servants of Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any
> > tournament is voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
>
> This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable alternative.
> Since national chess federations hold something close to a monopoly on
> the organization of chess tournaments, there is no reasonable
> alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't class `not
> playing' as a reasonable alternative.
>
> Dave.
I'm not quite clear on what you mean by that. Perhaps matters are
different in Europe, but the USCF _organizes_ very few tournaments.
Nearly all such activity in the U.S. is private. If you don't like one
organizer's tournaments, you play in someone else's. If you mean "sets
standards and provides rating and advertising services that nearly all
organizers need and use," OK. I would also agree that _if_ the USCF
decreed drug testing in tournaments, we'd have a problem. But that's a
low-probability counterfactual, and I can't see the point of debating
it as a pure hypothetical.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 14:48:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable
>> alternative. Since national chess federations hold something close
>> to a monopoly on the organization of chess tournaments, there is no
>> reasonable alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't
>> class `not playing' as a reasonable alternative.
>
> I'm not quite clear on what you mean by that. Perhaps matters are
> different in Europe, but the USCF _organizes_ very few tournaments.
No, usually the tournaments are organized independently, to the local
federation's standards.
> I would also agree that _if_ the USCF decreed drug testing in
> tournaments, we'd have a problem. But that's a low-probability
> counterfactual, and I can't see the point of debating it as a pure
> hypothetical.
Ah. In that case, we were talking at crossed purposes -- I thought
that was precisely the scenario that was under discussion.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Addictive Confusing Cheese (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a brick of cheese but you can't
understand it and you can never put
it down!
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 05:19:30
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> Fide have started running rated tournaments here, and btw, with their own
> rating system. I also think Fide will not suggest drug testing, but simply
> do it. But that is beside the point since the direct issue is what, of
> anything, USCF have 'urged' onto Fide in respect of US players.
>
> Phil Innes
I think there's one organizer (maybe two) who wanted to run a FIDE-
rated tournament that wasn't USCF-rated. It's insignificant, and it
shows every sign of staying that way. None of the real organizers in
the U.S. have shown any interest in this or in drug testing. And it's
worth noting that FIDE rating fees -- the ones FIDE charges the
national federations, not the ones the USCF charges organizers -- are
_very high_ by U.S. standards. "Creeping FIDE-ism" is sheer paranoia.
I agree that the Delegates ought to have taken a stronger line on
this, as a matter of principle. But as a practical matter, it seem
pretty minor.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 16:30:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:07f605ff-0ae6-45c0-85b8-a52a96fdf14b@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> Fide have started running rated tournaments here, and btw, with their own
>> rating system. I also think Fide will not suggest drug testing, but
>> simply
>> do it. But that is beside the point since the direct issue is what, of
>> anything, USCF have 'urged' onto Fide in respect of US players.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> I think there's one organizer (maybe two) who wanted to run a FIDE-
> rated tournament that wasn't USCF-rated. It's insignificant, and it
> shows every sign of staying that way. None of the real organizers in
> the U.S. have shown any interest in this or in drug testing. And it's
> worth noting that FIDE rating fees -- the ones FIDE charges the
> national federations, not the ones the USCF charges organizers -- are
> _very high_ by U.S. standards. "Creeping FIDE-ism" is sheer paranoia.
>
> I agree that the Delegates ought to have taken a stronger line on
> this, as a matter of principle. But as a practical matter, it seem
> pretty minor.
It had previously seemed pretty minor.
The issue for USCF is currently if they will object to drug-testing
/outside/ the US. Previous Fide delegates have not been exactly clear on
this issue- indeed, many have acted in a contrary way to USCF's ostensible
directives, and without any check on what they do.
This is the issue. Otherwise it must stand that USCF speaks with forked
tongue.
USCF themselves are numb to such questions, and any further clarification.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 09:41:22
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:07f605ff-0ae6-45c0-85b8-a52a96fdf14b@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> Fide have started running rated tournaments here, and btw, with their own
>> rating system. I also think Fide will not suggest drug testing, but simply
>> do it. But that is beside the point since the direct issue is what, of
>> anything, USCF have 'urged' onto Fide in respect of US players.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> I think there's one organizer (maybe two) who wanted to run a FIDE-
> rated tournament that wasn't USCF-rated. It's insignificant, and it
> shows every sign of staying that way. None of the real organizers in
> the U.S. have shown any interest in this or in drug testing. And it's
> worth noting that FIDE rating fees -- the ones FIDE charges the
> national federations, not the ones the USCF charges organizers -- are
> _very high_ by U.S. standards. "Creeping FIDE-ism" is sheer paranoia.
>
> I agree that the Delegates ought to have taken a stronger line on
> this, as a matter of principle. But as a practical matter, it seem
> pretty minor.
I think you have it backwards. As a practical matter, there is
no need to drug test chess players. As a matter of principle,
that chess players should compete without drugs is a good
one. My understanding is that most chess organizations
are acting correctly - i.e. they affirm the principle but don't
actually test. (I've never seen evidence to the contrary, anyway)
The "scandal" is just an invention of the usual weak-minded
characters.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 23:54:06
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
What the Delegates actually voted was:
"46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
Games. (2001)"
Kind of wimpy, but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
laziness and stupidity will cover it. There is no mention of drug
testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
drug testing in U.S. tournaments.
What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 08:03:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e44ee0ff-ef82-4280-9781-b0175d479da8@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> What the Delegates actually voted was:
>
> "46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
> unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
> where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
> Games. (2001)"
'urge' ?
> Kind of wimpy, but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
> laziness and stupidity will cover it. There is no mention of drug
> testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
> drug testing in U.S. tournaments.
Fide have started running rated tournaments here, and btw, with their own
rating system. I also think Fide will not suggest drug testing, but simply
do it. But that is beside the point since the direct issue is what, of
anything, USCF have 'urged' onto Fide in respect of US players.
This instance covers potential American players in Beijing - therefore it is
appropriate to understand the force of that 'urge'. Anyone know any more
than that?
> What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
> make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
> dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
> Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
> voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
If you don't like the Republican party, don't vote in the election?
Drug Testing brings chess into disrepute by electing to associate it with
drug-culture in sports. That is what's wrong with it. For chess players to
be offered the option to not play is in fact precisely that of a Soviet
government.
If USCF has a governance role at all [? has it?] then to what extent does it
represent actual players?
If the vast majority of US chess players detest the very idea of drug
testing, as demeaning as well as being without any possible value, then does
USCF have any obligation to honor those views?
The way to eliminate drug testing is to declare that no US player will be
tested anywhere in the world.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 12:41:55
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most
> obvious) make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess
> players is a dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured
> servants of Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any
> tournament is voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable alternative.
Since national chess federations hold something close to a monopoly on
the organization of chess tournaments, there is no reasonable
alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't class `not
playing' as a reasonable alternative.
If there was a good reason for drugs testing in chess or if the
majority of chess players were in favour of drugs testing, it would be
a different matter. However, as far as I can see, there is no good
reason for drugs testing (other than a bone-headed desire to get into
the Olympic games, which the IOC is against because it doesn't feel
that mind sports are `sports' in the sense that they are interested
in) or any support at all from the chess-playing public or chess
professionals (at least, this is what I infer: I cannot recall ever
having heard any chess player express support for drugs testing in
chess).
Dave.
--
David Richerby Dangerous T-Shirt (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement but it could explode
at any minute!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 14:53:53
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
In article <34f*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...] Drug testing of chess
>> players is a dumb idea, but [...]. If you don't like it, don't play.
>This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable alternative.
>Since national chess federations hold something close to a monopoly on
>the organization of chess tournaments,
??? How many chess tournaments in England are you claiming
are organised by the ECF? A handful of events [inc 4NCL] require
the players to be *members* of their national federations, but the
great majority are "pay your money and play", organised by locals
with no ECF involvement.
> there is no reasonable
>alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't class `not
>playing' as a reasonable alternative.
Well, we play under FIDE rules because otherwise we wouldn't
be playing the same game. When FIDE changes the rules in a daft way,
local leagues and tournaments just ignore them. Sometimes we do this
even when the rules aren't entirely daft [eg the mobile phone rules].
FIDE and ECF could start making more draconian rules, but this would
simply lead to disaffiliations and breakaways.
>If there was a good reason for drugs testing in chess or if the
>majority of chess players were in favour of drugs testing, it would be
>a different matter. However, as far as I can see, there is no good
>reason for drugs testing (other than a bone-headed desire to get into
>the Olympic games, which the IOC is against because it doesn't feel
>that mind sports are `sports' in the sense that they are interested
>in) [...].
There speaks the idealist. Whether or not chess is in the
Olympic Games [which is not called the Olympic Sports], it matters
to chess players that it be recognised by governments as a sport
-- as indeed it specifically is in the UK. This is not to do with
you sitting in a dingy back room in the pub and playing chess with
your mates, if that is your wish. It is to do with money. Large
amounts of money. Huge amounts of money, by the standards of chess.
Your taxes and mine are poured into support for archery, badminton,
synchronised swimming, beach volleyball, tennis -- sports great and
small, into their facilities, coaches, juniors, .... Money comes
from government grants, charities, corporate sponsorship, etc., and
the total is many billions each year. Sport is big business.
A mere 0.01%, even 0.001%, of that would transform chess.
Whether for better or worse, as far as ordinary chess players are
concerned is another matter; but you can be in no doubt that it
would be *hugely* to the benefit of titled players, coaches, juniors,
arbiters, authors -- and, of course, the ECF and other organisations
and organisers. And before you say "Oh, the ECF", don't forget that
if you are playing any rated chess at all the ECF is *you*. Your
clubs and teams and tournaments have votes at county and other levels,
which send delegates to the ECF, who determine how chess is run in
England.
Chess actually has a very good image. There are not very
many activities which can be undertaken at a high level and on a
level playing field by 7yos and 90yos, by able and disabled, by
men and women, by amateur and professional. It keeps thousands of
children off the street, and doing something mind-stretching. Lots
of companies, schools and public bodies would *like* to sponsor
chess, and to use it in their advertising and publicity. But they
don't know how to categorise it, and you get bounced around between
education, entertainment and sport.
The UK government has now defined it to be a sport. It does
not matter whether *you* think of it as a sport, what matters is that
it *has* a category that you can wave at newspapers, local radio and
TV, your council, lottery funds, charities, companies, .... That's
a huge benefit to those of us who are trying to run tournaments and
leagues; the benefit to you personally may be less direct. But get
involved, and you'll see.
All of this has very little to do with drugs. IMHO, it's
a pity that the drug-testing aspects have taken over much of the
debate, because in real life it will get smoothed over in some
pragmatic way. No-one is going to take samples from you when you
happen to win your game in the local league or championship; and
no-one is going to strip a GM of his title because he drinks too
much coffee. Everyone knows it's a nonsense, and the need is to
find some formula that saves faces. Taking up entrenched positions
makes that process harder.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 22:07:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [...] Drug testing of chess players is a dumb idea, but [...] If
>>> you don't like it, don't play.
>>
>> This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable
>> alternative. Since national chess federations hold something close
>> to a monopoly on the organization of chess tournaments,
>
> ??? How many chess tournaments in England are you claiming are
> organised by the ECF?
OK, OK. The tournaments aren't organized by the ECF but, if you want
them to rate the games (which most tournaments do), the the conduct of
the games has to be to the ECF's liking.
>> If there was a good reason for drugs testing in chess or if the
>> majority of chess players were in favour of drugs testing, it would
>> be a different matter. However, as far as I can see, there is no
>> good reason for drugs testing (other than a bone-headed desire to
>> get into the Olympic games, which the IOC is against because it
>> doesn't feel that mind sports are `sports' in the sense that they
>> are interested in) [...].
>
> Whether or not chess is in the Olympic Games [which is not called
> the Olympic Sports], it matters to chess players that it be
> recognised by governments as a sport [...]
Sure. But testing for non-existent drugs helps this not one iota.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Incredible Cheese (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a lump of cheese but it'll blow
your mind!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 01:49:48
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
In article <cFs*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
>> ??? How many chess tournaments in England are you claiming are
>> organised by the ECF?
>OK, OK. The tournaments aren't organized by the ECF but, if you want
>them to rate the games (which most tournaments do), the the conduct of
>the games has to be to the ECF's liking.
??? What are you claiming now, Dave? The ECF has never
taken the slightest interest in the conduct of games in the local
leagues and tournaments. Is it different around your way?
>> Whether or not chess is in the Olympic Games [which is not called
>> the Olympic Sports], it matters to chess players that it be
>> recognised by governments as a sport [...]
>Sure. But testing for non-existent drugs helps this not one iota.
As the testing is non-existent, how do you know the drugs
are? Chess has a very clean image, which we use to get sponsors;
I don't think we should be *too* complacent about it, or it will
turn round and bite us some day. *Some* formula has to be found;
"we know we don't have a problem so we don't want to check" is not
going to look good. Especially if it gets quoted back to us when
some daft IM gets caught smuggling or consuming.
Just to be clear -- this is not an argument in favour of a
rigorous regimen of drug testing like that in athletics. But if we
are to be spared that, we need to make the right noises, not stick
fingers in ears and go "la-la-la". Something along the lines of:
" We don't believe that chess has a serious drug problem, and
" indeed the mental fitness required to play chess at high levels
" suggests that we have fewer problems than the community at large,
" but we will of course monitor the situation and consider what
" steps need to be taken if this changes, and what pro-active steps,
" if any, need to be taken to prevent problems in the future. We
" will co-operate fully with governments and other bodies, including
" other mind sports, in this process. "
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 13:34:29
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Andy Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ??? How many chess tournaments in England are you claiming are
>>> organised by the ECF?
>> OK, OK. The tournaments aren't organized by the ECF but, if you
>> want them to rate the games (which most tournaments do), the the
>> conduct of the games has to be to the ECF's liking.
>
> ??? What are you claiming now, Dave? The ECF has never taken the
> slightest interest in the conduct of games in the local leagues and
> tournaments. Is it different around your way?
Are you saying that the ECF will rate just any game you ask it to,
without caring whether it was played under sensible conditions, to
sensible rules? I'd always assumed there must be at least some
requirements -- after all, surely the ECF wouldn't grade the results
of a club tiddlywinks championship.
>>> Whether or not chess is in the Olympic Games [which is not called
>>> the Olympic Sports], it matters to chess players that it be
>>> recognised by governments as a sport [...]
>>
>> Sure. But testing for non-existent drugs helps this not one iota.
>
> As the testing is non-existent, how do you know the drugs are?
Phrasing more carefully, `Sure. But testing for non-existent
*performance-enhancing* drugs helps this not one iota.' There aren't
any performance-enhancing drugs in chess; if there are, the
anti-doping agencies don't know about them so no testing is being
done.
The drugs testing regimes in athletic sports are there to detect
people who are cheating by taking performance-enhancing drugs. See,
for example, WADA's `Mission and Priorities' page, which talks
entirely about doping and does not mention recreational drug use at
all. ( http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=255 )
Recreational drug use gets covered in two ways. The first is that
some substances that are usually taken recreationally may be of
enhance performance in some sports -- consider the prevalence of
amphetamines in cycling in the past, for example. The other is that
the WADA anti-doping code says that a substance can be banned if it
meets at least two of the criteria of being performance-enhancing,
being harmful to the athlete's health and/or violating the spirit of
the sport. The last of these seems to me to be sufficiently vague
that it could apply to almost anything; the second one probably
applies to most recreational drug use. But it seems to me that
recreational drug use is not something that is specifically targeted
by anti-doping organizations; rather, it is something that they pick
up on as a consequence of their primary goal, the eradication of
performance-enhancing drugs.
> Chess has a very clean image, which we use to get sponsors; I don't
> think we should be *too* complacent about it, or it will turn round
> and bite us some day. *Some* formula has to be found; "we know we
> don't have a problem so we don't want to check" is not going to look
> good. Especially if it gets quoted back to us when some daft IM
> gets caught smuggling or consuming.
I'm still not sure that this something we should be addressing. After
all, we also believe that there isn't a significant problem with any
other sort of criminal behaviour within chess but nobody is suggesting
that chess organizations should have some sort of anti-murder policy,
just in case some daft IM pulls a gun on somebody.
I agree that it would be bad if chess became associated with drugs of
any kind. The idea that all professional chess players spend their
weekends snorting cocaine would be just as harmful as the idea that
all professional cyclists spend their weekends having blood
transfusions and injecting themselves with EPO and HGH. But the two
situations are completely different, precisely because recreational
drug-use is performance-inhibiting for chess (so chess itself provides
pressure for players to be clean), while drug use in cycling is
performance-enhancing (so a clean cyclist is pressured to take the
drugs just to keep up with his doping colleagues).
Recreational drug use is a law-enforcement problem and should be
investigated by law-enforcement agencies, not by chess associations.
> " We don't believe that chess has a serious drug problem, and
> " indeed the mental fitness required to play chess at high levels
> " suggests that we have fewer problems than the community at large,
> " but we will of course monitor the situation and consider what
> " steps need to be taken if this changes, and what pro-active steps,
> " if any, need to be taken to prevent problems in the future. We
> " will co-operate fully with governments and other bodies, including
> " other mind sports, in this process. "
OK, that sounds entirely reasonable. But, in the absence of any
actual performance-enhancing drugs for chess, I'm not sure it actually
says anything! (Of course, if it's helpful to the cause of chess for
chess associations to make this sort of empty statement, I don't see
that it can do any harm.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mouldy Lotion (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ soothing hand lotion but it's starting
to grow mushrooms!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jun 2008 01:35:21
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
In article <rsA*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
>> ??? What are you claiming now, Dave? The ECF has never taken the
>> slightest interest in the conduct of games in the local leagues and
>> tournaments. Is it different around your way?
>Are you saying that the ECF will rate just any game you ask it to,
>without caring whether it was played under sensible conditions, to
>sensible rules? I'd always assumed there must be at least some
>requirements -- after all, surely the ECF wouldn't grade the results
>of a club tiddlywinks championship.
There is a degree of trust involved. *You* are not [AFAIK]
known by the ECF to be a county grader; if you were, then the ECF
would accept the results you sent in for your local leagues and
tournaments [and would charge game fee for them]. Our local grader
accepts results notified to him by people he knows and trusts. If
my club sent in the results of its tiddlywinks championship in the
guise of a chess tournament, the ECF would find out only if, when
the results were published, someone complained. Most rated chess
is played with no ECF official present, so TINA.
>>> [... T]esting for non-existent drugs helps this not one iota.
>> As the testing is non-existent, how do you know the drugs are?
>Phrasing more carefully, `Sure. But testing for non-existent
>*performance-enhancing* drugs helps this not one iota.' There aren't
>any performance-enhancing drugs in chess; if there are, the
>anti-doping agencies don't know about them so no testing is being
>done.
So your new claim is not that either drugs in general or
p-e drugs in chess are non-existent, but that we don't know about
them and so don't test. Isn't that a recipe for never knowing and
never testing? Shouldn't we keep an open mind rather than reject
the notion out of hand? [An IM playing for my team a few years
back insisted that I ought to drink Coca Cola before every match
-- I thought of my health and declined, otherwise I might have had
my title by now ....]
[...]
>I'm still not sure that this something we should be addressing. After
>all, we also believe that there isn't a significant problem with any
>other sort of criminal behaviour within chess but nobody is suggesting
>that chess organizations should have some sort of anti-murder policy,
>just in case some daft IM pulls a gun on somebody.
OTOH, we have indeed had a problem with criminal behaviour in
chess, viz paedophilia; and we *now* have policies in place. Chess
has also been pro-active [at least in the UK] in implementing smoking
bans, disabled access and positive discrimination for women. ...
>I agree that it would be bad if chess became associated with drugs of
>any kind.
... Right, and that is why drugs should not just be ignored.
A daft IM pulling a gun is not something that *anyone* sensible would
associate with chess clubs; if it happens, it will always be some
particular individual going berserk. But clubs are, by definition,
places where people meet; and so are a possible cover for some sorts
of undesirable behaviour. We need to take reasonable steps to make
sure that chess is not associated with such things. ...
[...]
>Recreational drug use is a law-enforcement problem and should be
>investigated by law-enforcement agencies, not by chess associations.
... Of course. Would you not say the same about paedophilia?
Nevertheless, a couple of high-profile cases tarnished the image of
chess as a safe thing for children to be doing.
>> " We don't believe that chess has a serious drug problem, and
>> " [...]. We
>> " will co-operate fully with governments and other bodies, including
>> " other mind sports, in this process. "
>OK, that sounds entirely reasonable. But, in the absence of any
>actual performance-enhancing drugs for chess, I'm not sure it actually
>says anything! (Of course, if it's helpful to the cause of chess for
>chess associations to make this sort of empty statement, I don't see
>that it can do any harm.)
The statement may be empty, but the political effect isn't.
If we sweep the problem under the carpet, just because it doesn't
seem to apply to us, then we will find ourselves eventually being
forced to apply the solutions devised by those who really do have
the problem. It's important to be part of the process.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 00:29:26
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:54:06 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>What the Delegates actually voted was:
>"46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
>unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
>where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
>Games. (2001)"
>Kind of wimpy,
Seems more than wimpy. Seems a way to claim they resisted FIDE when
they actually caved.
>but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
>laziness and stupidity will cover it.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but, as I understand it, one or more of
our delegates accepted very expensive ts / gratuities (Rolex
watches) from parties interested in their votes. While this, even if
true, doesn't *prove* that the votes of these folks were influenced by
said gratuities, accepting stuff like this is nominally a firing
offense in the government or corporate world.
>There is no mention of drug
>testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
>drug testing in U.S. tournaments.
From what I've read, FIDE has claimed they have no current plans to
demand such tests, but implied they have the power to do so.
>What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
>make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
>dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
>Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
>voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
Well, Parr is quite capable of representing his own positions, but as
I understand him, he claims the drug testing is a way of asserting
dominance, claiming turf, degrading the national federations' control
over their players and competitive environments.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 07:55:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Dopes
|
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:35:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>More doping in chess to accommodate WADA. Chess will be dope tested in
>Beijing, even though it is admitted to be no point to it. It is unclear
>about American players, since USCF had said 'no dope testing here', but on
>previous occassions did not insist that US players overseas should not be
>tested during chess Olympiads, for example.
>
>Phil Innes
Our officials say, "no dope testing of American players on our watch!
-- oh, it's a Rolex, ummm, well, uhh, international harmony and
all..."
|
|
