| |
Main
Date: 22 Jan 2009 05:48:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: The case against drug testing in chess
|
FIDE Nixes Ivanchuk Drug Testing Penalty
By Mig on his Daily Dirt, January 22, 2009 00:01
Let it be said that on one day, on one occasion, sanity prevailed in
FIDE.
January 21 2009 - FIDE
Drug testing is still relatively rare in chess. However, it does
occur in various official events and was carried out during the course
of the Dresden Olympiad. Unfortunately, a high proportion of the tests
were scheduled during the last round and there was a lack of
personnel, which lead to a procedural error: there was not a
designated Doping Control Officer present at this match (USA v
Ukraine).
After losing a crucial game for his country, Mr Ivanchuk was
distraught. The Hearing Panel concludes that although the arbiter
attempted to inform Mr Ivanchuk in English that he should accompany
him for a doping test, Mr Ivanchuk apparently failed to understand the
instructions, especially since English is not Mr Ivanchuk's first
language. If there had been a Doping Control Officer present, he would
have immediately gone to Mr Ivanchuk's board and there would have been
communication between him and Mr Ivanchuk. In that case the outcome
might have been different. Because there was no notification by the
Doping Control officer, there was no refusal in the sense of the
regulations.
The Conclusion:
The procedural error allied with Mr Ivanchuk's state of mind led him
unintentionally to miss the test. The Hearing Panel therefore
concludes unanimously that there should be no penalty.
Pretty much what I figured would happen. Nobody loses face. But had
the same thing happened to a lesser-known player from a less important
federation, I seriously doubt the result would have been the same.
Nothing new there, or unique to chess, but not a comforting thought.
Btw, when he was on Chess.FM with me for round one of Corus, Peter
Svidler took a moment to criticize the continued existence of drug
testing now that Ilyumzhinov's dream of getting chess into the
Olympics is long dead.
P.S. See also THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS (pages 82-98) which includes
the full text of our "Case Against Drug-Testing in U.S. Chess" by
Larry Parr and Larry Evans which we prepared for the FIDE Advisory
Committee of the USCF in 1991.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 17:29:45
From: None
Subject: Re: The case against drug testing in chess
|
On Jan 22, 4:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2:25=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 2:00=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 1:51=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 22, 1:31=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 22, 12:58=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I think Ivanchuk is above the law. =A0Next they'll be checking =
for
> > > > > > electronic devices--where will this inquiry end? =A0Just let th=
em
> > > > > > play...
>
> > > > > =A0 Drugs are not the real threat.
>
> > > > > =A0 When, at move seventeen in a Marshall Gambit
> > > > > against IM Sebastianovomokolallavich, I announced
> > > > > a forced mate-in-one-hundred-twenty-seven moves,
> > > > > the spectators were stunned. =A0 As it turned out, the
> > > > > local rules did not provide for an extention of the
> > > > > fifty-moves-draw rule, so the theoretical win was
> > > > > impossible to demonstrate-- though every Russian
> > > > > school boy knows that two Rooks lose perforce
> > > > > against five Knights, via zugzwang.
>
> > > > > =A0 The case of GM Ivanchuk is rather amusing,
> > > > > as not only has he been one of the world's top
> > > > > players for decades, but he in fact lost the game.
> > > > > Why test the losers at all? =A0 They are obviously
> > > > > using Chessmaster or Fritz, or even playing on
> > > > > their own. =A0 =A0The people to catch cheating are
> > > > > those who, using Rybka (& ChessBase), are
> > > > > finding moves that no human could possibly
> > > > > calculate over the board. =A0 These people may
> > > > > well be in touch with Bobby Fischer or one of
> > > > > the other deceased titans of chess, or they may
> > > > > just be drunk and have gotten very lucky, as we
> > > > > often saw with Mr. Blackburne... .
>
> > > > > =A0 -- help bot
>
> > > > =A0Drugs are not the real threat. -- help bot
>
> > > > "It is better to have drugs and no money than to have money and no
> > > > drugs." - R. Crumb
>
> > > =A0 Did Crumb actually say that? I read a lot of Zap Comix in my youn=
ger
> > > days, and I remember that saying as coming from Gilbert Shelton's
> > > "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers," whose motto was "Dope will get you
> > > through times of no money better than money will get you through time=
s
> > > of no dope."
>
> > > =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Brothers#Catchph=
ras...quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You're correct...my memory used to fail me a lot in those days...I
> > assumed it was Crumb. At a recent Judy Collins concert I attended, she
> > remarked: "If you remember the sixties you weren't really there."
>
> =A0 Yes, that's become a clich=E9. Funny, I remember the Sixties and earl=
y
> Seventies probably more clearly than any other part of my life, though
> I certainly did not abstain from the supposedly memory-altering or -
> obliterating activities then fashionable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know, I agree, I too am still stuck in the 60s.
One panel I recall had fat Freddie smelling and looking for cat poop.
He never thought to look in the hanging plant. Another I plagiarized
about ten years back. I did a yarn about Sam Sloan's father actually
being Popeye the sailor man.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:24:59
From:
Subject: Re: The case against drug testing in chess
|
On Jan 22, 2:25=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2:00=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 1:51=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 1:31=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 22, 12:58=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think Ivanchuk is above the law. =A0Next they'll be checking fo=
r
> > > > > electronic devices--where will this inquiry end? =A0Just let them
> > > > > play...
>
> > > > =A0 Drugs are not the real threat.
>
> > > > =A0 When, at move seventeen in a Marshall Gambit
> > > > against IM Sebastianovomokolallavich, I announced
> > > > a forced mate-in-one-hundred-twenty-seven moves,
> > > > the spectators were stunned. =A0 As it turned out, the
> > > > local rules did not provide for an extention of the
> > > > fifty-moves-draw rule, so the theoretical win was
> > > > impossible to demonstrate-- though every Russian
> > > > school boy knows that two Rooks lose perforce
> > > > against five Knights, via zugzwang.
>
> > > > =A0 The case of GM Ivanchuk is rather amusing,
> > > > as not only has he been one of the world's top
> > > > players for decades, but he in fact lost the game.
> > > > Why test the losers at all? =A0 They are obviously
> > > > using Chessmaster or Fritz, or even playing on
> > > > their own. =A0 =A0The people to catch cheating are
> > > > those who, using Rybka (& ChessBase), are
> > > > finding moves that no human could possibly
> > > > calculate over the board. =A0 These people may
> > > > well be in touch with Bobby Fischer or one of
> > > > the other deceased titans of chess, or they may
> > > > just be drunk and have gotten very lucky, as we
> > > > often saw with Mr. Blackburne... .
>
> > > > =A0 -- help bot
>
> > > =A0Drugs are not the real threat. -- help bot
>
> > > "It is better to have drugs and no money than to have money and no
> > > drugs." - R. Crumb
>
> > =A0 Did Crumb actually say that? I read a lot of Zap Comix in my younge=
r
> > days, and I remember that saying as coming from Gilbert Shelton's
> > "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers," whose motto was "Dope will get you
> > through times of no money better than money will get you through times
> > of no dope."
>
> > =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Brothers#Catchphra=
ses-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You're correct...my memory used to fail me a lot in those days...I
> assumed it was Crumb. At a recent Judy Collins concert I attended, she
> remarked: "If you remember the sixties you weren't really there."
Yes, that's become a clich=E9. Funny, I remember the Sixties and early
Seventies probably more clearly than any other part of my life, though
I certainly did not abstain from the supposedly memory-altering or -
obliterating activities then fashionable.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 11:25:12
From: None
Subject: Re: The case against drug testing in chess
|
On Jan 22, 2:00=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 22, 1:51=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 1:31=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 12:58=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I think Ivanchuk is above the law. =A0Next they'll be checking for
> > > > electronic devices--where will this inquiry end? =A0Just let them
> > > > play...
>
> > > =A0 Drugs are not the real threat.
>
> > > =A0 When, at move seventeen in a Marshall Gambit
> > > against IM Sebastianovomokolallavich, I announced
> > > a forced mate-in-one-hundred-twenty-seven moves,
> > > the spectators were stunned. =A0 As it turned out, the
> > > local rules did not provide for an extention of the
> > > fifty-moves-draw rule, so the theoretical win was
> > > impossible to demonstrate-- though every Russian
> > > school boy knows that two Rooks lose perforce
> > > against five Knights, via zugzwang.
>
> > > =A0 The case of GM Ivanchuk is rather amusing,
> > > as not only has he been one of the world's top
> > > players for decades, but he in fact lost the game.
> > > Why test the losers at all? =A0 They are obviously
> > > using Chessmaster or Fritz, or even playing on
> > > their own. =A0 =A0The people to catch cheating are
> > > those who, using Rybka (& ChessBase), are
> > > finding moves that no human could possibly
> > > calculate over the board. =A0 These people may
> > > well be in touch with Bobby Fischer or one of
> > > the other deceased titans of chess, or they may
> > > just be drunk and have gotten very lucky, as we
> > > often saw with Mr. Blackburne... .
>
> > > =A0 -- help bot
>
> > =A0Drugs are not the real threat. -- help bot
>
> > "It is better to have drugs and no money than to have money and no
> > drugs." - R. Crumb
>
> =A0 Did Crumb actually say that? I read a lot of Zap Comix in my younger
> days, and I remember that saying as coming from Gilbert Shelton's
> "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers," whose motto was "Dope will get you
> through times of no money better than money will get you through times
> of no dope."
>
> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Brothers#Catchphrase=
s- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're correct...my memory used to fail me a lot in those days...I
assumed it was Crumb. At a recent Judy Collins concert I attended, she
remarked: "If you remember the sixties you weren't really there."
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 11:00:58
From:
Subject: Re: The case against drug testing in chess
|
On Jan 22, 1:51=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 1:31=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 12:58=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I think Ivanchuk is above the law. =A0Next they'll be checking for
> > > electronic devices--where will this inquiry end? =A0Just let them
> > > play...
>
> > =A0 Drugs are not the real threat.
>
> > =A0 When, at move seventeen in a Marshall Gambit
> > against IM Sebastianovomokolallavich, I announced
> > a forced mate-in-one-hundred-twenty-seven moves,
> > the spectators were stunned. =A0 As it turned out, the
> > local rules did not provide for an extention of the
> > fifty-moves-draw rule, so the theoretical win was
> > impossible to demonstrate-- though every Russian
> > school boy knows that two Rooks lose perforce
> > against five Knights, via zugzwang.
>
> > =A0 The case of GM Ivanchuk is rather amusing,
> > as not only has he been one of the world's top
> > players for decades, but he in fact lost the game.
> > Why test the losers at all? =A0 They are obviously
> > using Chessmaster or Fritz, or even playing on
> > their own. =A0 =A0The people to catch cheating are
> > those who, using Rybka (& ChessBase), are
> > finding moves that no human could possibly
> > calculate over the board. =A0 These people may
> > well be in touch with Bobby Fischer or one of
> > the other deceased titans of chess, or they may
> > just be drunk and have gotten very lucky, as we
> > often saw with Mr. Blackburne... .
>
> > =A0 -- help bot
>
> =A0Drugs are not the real threat. -- help bot
>
> "It is better to have drugs and no money than to have money and no
> drugs." - R. Crumb
Did Crumb actually say that? I read a lot of Zap Comix in my younger
days, and I remember that saying as coming from Gilbert Shelton's
"Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers," whose motto was "Dope will get you
through times of no money better than money will get you through times
of no dope."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Brothers#Catchphrases
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:51:32
From: None
Subject: Re: The case against drug testing in chess
|
On Jan 22, 1:31=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:58=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I think Ivanchuk is above the law. =A0Next they'll be checking for
> > electronic devices--where will this inquiry end? =A0Just let them
> > play...
>
> =A0 Drugs are not the real threat.
>
> =A0 When, at move seventeen in a Marshall Gambit
> against IM Sebastianovomokolallavich, I announced
> a forced mate-in-one-hundred-twenty-seven moves,
> the spectators were stunned. =A0 As it turned out, the
> local rules did not provide for an extention of the
> fifty-moves-draw rule, so the theoretical win was
> impossible to demonstrate-- though every Russian
> school boy knows that two Rooks lose perforce
> against five Knights, via zugzwang.
>
> =A0 The case of GM Ivanchuk is rather amusing,
> as not only has he been one of the world's top
> players for decades, but he in fact lost the game.
> Why test the losers at all? =A0 They are obviously
> using Chessmaster or Fritz, or even playing on
> their own. =A0 =A0The people to catch cheating are
> those who, using Rybka (& ChessBase), are
> finding moves that no human could possibly
> calculate over the board. =A0 These people may
> well be in touch with Bobby Fischer or one of
> the other deceased titans of chess, or they may
> just be drunk and have gotten very lucky, as we
> often saw with Mr. Blackburne... .
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Drugs are not the real threat. -- help bot
"It is better to have drugs and no money than to have money and no
drugs." - R. Crumb
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:31:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The case against drug testing in chess
|
On Jan 22, 12:58=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think Ivanchuk is above the law. =A0Next they'll be checking for
> electronic devices--where will this inquiry end? =A0Just let them
> play...
Drugs are not the real threat.
When, at move seventeen in a Marshall Gambit
against IM Sebastianovomokolallavich, I announced
a forced mate-in-one-hundred-twenty-seven moves,
the spectators were stunned. As it turned out, the
local rules did not provide for an extention of the
fifty-moves-draw rule, so the theoretical win was
impossible to demonstrate-- though every Russian
school boy knows that two Rooks lose perforce
against five Knights, via zugzwang.
The case of GM Ivanchuk is rather amusing,
as not only has he been one of the world's top
players for decades, but he in fact lost the game.
Why test the losers at all? They are obviously
using Chessmaster or Fritz, or even playing on
their own. The people to catch cheating are
those who, using Rybka (& ChessBase), are
finding moves that no human could possibly
calculate over the board. These people may
well be in touch with Bobby Fischer or one of
the other deceased titans of chess, or they may
just be drunk and have gotten very lucky, as we
often saw with Mr. Blackburne... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:58:36
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: The case against drug testing in chess
|
On Jan 22, 8:48=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
I think Ivanchuk is above the law. Next they'll be checking for
electronic devices--where will this inquiry end? Just let them
play...
RL
|
|
