Visiting family is gone, so back to the news. Unfortunately, FIDE is still trying to show it is more important than chess and chessplayers. Now it seems their idiotic drug testing policy has finally clashed with reality, as Vassily Ivanchuk did not take a required test after his dramatic final round Olympiad loss against Kamsky. ChessBase has the chronology and details here. Alexei Shirov, one of the few top GMs with balls enough to talk about these things publicly on a regular basis (not including cases of obvious self-interest), has an open letter that mentions the drug testing stupidity and Ivanchuk case as well as the recently announced candidates tournament being tacked on to the 2011 cycle that is already in progress. (That's for a separate item.)
According to the rules, Ivanchuk's Olympiad results could be stripped and he could even be banned for two years. I refuse to believe either of these things will happen. It usually requires the high-profile breaking of a stupid rule for its stupidity to be clearly seen by all. Consider it a constitutional challenge, the way bad laws get overturned all the time in the US. Of course FIDE is plenty dumb enough to actually enforce this, at least the Olympiad part, in order for Ilyumzhinov and his cronies to be able to continue attending IOC cocktail parties with FIDE money. More likely, they will find a way to make everyone unhappy and to postpone the reckoning that is needed. A warning to Ivanchuk, perhaps a slap on the wrist, and the continuation of this idiotic drug-testing regime. And don't forget the drug testing isn't just for largely nonexistent IOC privileges, there is also substantial money involved.
The ChessBase article concludes with "The case is now pending: a five-man medical commission of FIDE has to convene and decide on the consequences, no later than three months after the incident. The quandary remains: FIDE can penalize a top player and redistribute the medals, or alienate the IOC Doping Commission and endanger the recognition of FIDE as a IOC sport (which is why the fairly nonsensical drug testing for chess players was installed in the first place).
However: there is a way out: in Article 6.1 (a) the FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations state: "If the Player establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Player's individual results in the other Competition shall not be disqualified." One can only hope that Vassily Ivanchuk and FIDE will find a way to establish just this."
FIDE has needed a new slogan for a while now. How do you say, "FIDE, taking the piss since 2002" in Latin?
Obviously chess has gone as far within the IOC as it possibly can. I wonder if the $2.3 million or so that chess was getting from NOCs in 2004 is still coming in?
That being said anti-doping has always been mind-numbingly stupid in non-IOC events (or did the German NOC fund the Olympiad?)
Either way if Leko-Ivanchuk gets reversed and the US loses their bronze, I hope everyone finally throws a hissy fit and gets rid of this moron Kirsan.
Were any other players tested during the Olympiad? How are players chosen for testing?
Do we know when he was notified as to his need to be tested? If it was immediately after a game he had lost, it was poor timing.
I wish like Shirov top players like Anand and Topalov speak up and at least avoid Ivanchuk's tragedy, at the same time I think it shuld be brought to the notice of all professionals that they have to undergo testing even if it sounds so idiotic. I think Anand underwent it after his match in Bonn. He mentioned it is unnecessary still did it for technical reasons. The way chess fans know Ivanchuk I think he did not give sample because he was upset with his result and not because he thought its stupid to do it. Shirov or Kramnik may have done it knowingly but not Chucky. It will be a sad affair if there is actual ban on Chucky.
Stripping a third-party of its medals after they have been awarded would be astoundingly dense. Imagine the potential for manipulation when you know for a fact that simply not showing up for a drug test could move the medals. Less conspiratorially, I could easily see the Hungarian federation ending up in a difficult position now.
I think the whole drug testing thing is a waste of time for chess players. I don't know what drug would make someone play chess better. A chess player needs a balance between having nervous energy and a degree of calmness. They should have done any drug tests before the start of each round, not after the game has finished. Ivanchuk should not face any punishment so far as I am concerned.
People,
rules are rules. Ivanchuk is a great guy, one of my favourite players in the chess world. I support him in every tournament he takes part in and I think he has been the strongest chess player for some time now.
But you have to put sentiments aside. I didn't see Shirov expressing his thoughts when two chess patzers were banned 4 years ago for the exact same scenario. So just because we have one of the world's top players who is a nice guy, everyone is shouting foul.
A chess player should act humane in victory and defeat. He should be a person who young chess players should follow and admire. So if he acts wrongly he should be punished according to the rules. If the rules allow him to just get a warning then so be it, but you cannot expect FIDE not to do anything about it.
I remind you of Fischer's fate with the US government just because he played a chess match. They kept on persecuting and haunting him until they drove him crazy. Now that's where they should have let go.
Don't worry about 3rd place. If Ivanchuk's result get voided, they cannot re-calculate all the tie-breaks. It's just not done in sports.
Duncan
Rules are rules?
Not all rules make sense. Should we blindly follow all rules cause someone put them in to kiss a third party's ass?
The issue here is that Ivanchuk is an emotional person. He's not all there in the head, he never was. When he just lost a key match and blew it for his country, he's bound to get out of control. You expect him to submit to a Urine test at that point? Do you even realize how ridiculous that request is?
I don't think there's anyone who knows Ivanchuk that can seriously believe that Ivanchuk was on some kind of drugs in this case. But yes, if they just shrug this case off, there will be others who will challange this law. The thing is, it should be challanged if it doesn't make sense.
Banning Ivanchuk for 2 years would be a horrible loss to chess and would raise quite an outcry against FIDE. And FIDE isn't really loved as it is.
According to the rules all games matches and tie-breaks have to be recalculated. It's chess not just any other random sport.
I fully agree, drug testing in chess is almost nonsense, but rules are clear about this issue.
Kirk writes:
"I think the whole drug testing thing is a waste of time for chess players. I don't know what drug would make someone play chess better."
Well, there's methylphenidate. And amphetamines. Damn near any CNS stimulant. Some commenters on this blog have even admitted to scoring some Ritalin hits before playing and having good results.
I don't buy that drug testing in chess is nonsense. Never have.
This is just another case that shows that FIDE, who should be acting to benefit chess, is doing excactly the opposite. The world chessfederation should be run by chessplayers and not bureucrats in suits with their heads up their asses.
Rules are rules? FIDE doesn't even follow their own rules. They keep changing the World Champion cycle every other month.
How about we all start ignoring rules we don't personally think make sense. Then let's complain about the injustice we're suffering if anyone, our opponents or an arbiter or such, objects. Sounds brilliant. Let's see now, what do we have, I hate this wonderful "zero forfeit" rule. And don't get me started on all those silly measures to "discourage unfought draws" by move limits or whatever. Still wouldn't occur to be to deliberately violate any of these rules if I signed up for an event applying them. There are better ways to protest. Be a rebel, not an anarchist.
Curious observation about Fischer. Did you feel the same way about the French breaking the sanctions on Iraq, for example? Or is it only chessplayers who should be allowed to break sanctions?
For those saying 3rd place won't happen because of a tiebreaks issue, you're missing something.
Ukraine beat Hungary 2.5-1.5, with Chukky beating Leko on Board 1. If Chukky's results are nullified, that match would be a win for Hungary instead of a loss, taking them to 18 points instead of 16. The US, with 17, would drop back to 4th.
Not sure if Israel vs. Hungary tiebreaks would be recalculated but it looks like Israel is safe in Silver.
"I remind you of Fischer's fate with the US government just because he played a chess match. They kept on persecuting and haunting him until they drove him crazy."
Don't forget the Jews: their plotting and scheming kept poor Bobby awake at nights too. And Kasparov playing prearranged games also robbed him of his repose!
This is classic case where the average chess player's stupidity came back to bite him in the ass.
For a long time, the retardos have claimed that chess is a sport and as such should be included in the Olympic games.
Well, if they truly believe that chess is a sport (which it is not) they should not object to dope testing.
This thread also illustrated the average retardo's lack of honesty: all of a sudden, the rules are not to be followed or enforced on a top player. A 2500 would not merit such "courtesy".
Stupid, dishonest morons...
Solution?
Stop pretending that chess is a sport.
Whoa there "irv". A bit much to be calling other people morons, no? Not all people who spoke out against this doping rule support the idea that Chess is a sport. Don't start generalizing and calling people names, it only makes you look like that label you're throwing around.
FIDE cannnot, would not , should not , will not ban Chucky.
I like the letter of Shirov because not only supports Chucky but also reminds to those with selective amnesia that FIDE has just broke more important rules than Ivanchuk.
I guess this is a right translation, Mig ))))
FIDE - Accumulo urina cum MMII annus.
Sergev wrote:
"Whoa there "irv". A bit much to be calling other people morons, no?"
Let's face it, Sergev: only a moron would believe that chess is a sport.
I agree, though, that there are smart chess players. A small minority, but it does exist.
:-)
I agree with the views above the rules are rules and they need to be adhered to. I also agree that if the rules don't make sense, then they should be dropped.
However, if the rule is changed, it will change "after" the Chucky incident. So he is still bound by those rules. Hopefully there is something in FIDE rules that allows them to retro-change any rules.
But consider an scenario, where a chessplayer actually took drugs to enhance his concentration during a game, is it fair to his/her opponent?
Regarding FIDE's changing-the-WC-cylce-rule-every-other-month style, this is something else. Although it shows how incompetent FIDE is, they "correctly" make the rules change before the event, not after the fact.
Kirsan interrupts the celebration of the Dresden Olympiad to anounce that he will change the rules of this sport again , then he suggest that Ivanchuk might get punished for not folowing rules from another sport.
Reality is beating the crap out of fiction at this moment, wild staff.
Pyada,
Anand actually had to take a drug test right in the middle of the match (I think it was immediately after game 6). They then decided to hold two separate press conferences, which was likely for Kramnik's benefit more than anything else (why not just delay the press conference for a few minutes? I don't think that Anand was drinking that much tea during the games).
tsn,
"But consider an scenario, where a chessplayer actually took drugs to enhance his concentration during a game, is it fair to his/her opponent?"
I think it is. "Concentration" while necessary to play good chess, is not the core skill needed to play the game, the way that strength and speed are in sports. You can't learn opening theory, or tactics, or calculation by taking a pill or a shot.
To me, taking a drug to "improve your concentration" in chess is a lot like an athlete blasting Outkast or some Green Day to get an adrenaline rush before a race or game. Sure, I suppose it's possible that it can "help". Is it a problem? No.
Get rid of Fide and their corrupt lackeys! The Kirsan and those thugs of his got to go! I wish Ivanchuck would have flayed out both those dweebs who had the nerve to tell him to pee in a cup after he just lost one of the most important games of the Olympiad! I know how mad he was after losing and these dumb asses have the nerve to tell him "oh,by the way we see you lost your team a medal , now go pee in my cup , you loser!" I wonder how many hits that would get on U-Tube!?
Shirov on Chess-Base said it like it is. Chess does not need the IOC and their corrupt politicians stinking up our noble game. The top players need to have their federations clean it up or the Players can start up the Professional Players Association again.
Get Rid Of The Bums!!
What I cannot understand (well, mayne I do) is why people like Susan Polgar cozy up to Ilyumzhinov at these events.
Maybe I am naive; but having your picture taken with the clown (if it doesn't involve getting an award) is kind of like Lindbergh getting his picture taken with Goering or Hitler.
And no one seems to be able to tell me how much of my USCF dues goes to suppurt this ridiculous pretense of a FIDE president.
"Regarding FIDE's changing-the-WC-cylce-rule-every-other-month style, this is something else. Although it shows how incompetent FIDE is, they "correctly" make the rules change before the event, not after the fact."
uhm???
they are changing the rules IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EVENT for pete's sake.
the rules of the grand prix 2008/2009 includes detailed information on what happens in the rest of the cycle as well. they have contracts with 21 players of the grand prix based on the rules of the 2008-2011 cycle as it was planned and layed out in various regulations, back in 2007.
if you think fide in any way has "correctly made the change before the event", then there are some pieces of information that you must have missed.
i recommend chessdom's recent article:
http://www.chessdom.com/news/world-chess-championship-cycle-changes
or the recent blog item by henrik carlsen, magnus carlsen's father and manager:
http://blog.magnuschess.com/1228248845_after_dresden_and_on_.html
It's comforting to see that most people are against FIDE's last nonsensical attempt against chess and chessplayers. We're all used to it.
Sure, there will always be iron pants, like acirce, who reminds me a lot to that character from Tom Hank's film, The Terminal, where a very inflexible immigration officer sickly wants to apply the rules at all cost over poor Viktor Navorski...
a must watch film. Best luck to Ivanchuk.
By the way, Ivanchuk was feeling preety sore after his loss to Kamsky. One of my colleagues who played from the Kenya team at the Dresden Olympiad had this to say:
"I went for a little tinkle and out of nowhere there came this blood-curdling scream. I quickly finished up and proceeded out of the washroom to see what was going on. Just outside was the strange appearance of Vassily Ivanchuk. Clearly he was the guy who produced that sound. The man is mad. He saw me, quickly composed himself and walked away".
By the way, Ivanchuk was feeling preety sore after his loss to Kamsky. One of my colleagues who played from the Kenya team at the Dresden Olympiad had this to say right ater that game:
"I went for a little tinkle and out of nowhere there came this blood-curdling scream. I quickly finished up and proceeded out of the washroom to see what was going on. Just outside was the strange appearance of Vassily Ivanchuk. Clearly he was the guy who produced that sound. The man is mad. He saw me, quickly composed himself and walked away".
By the way, Ivanchuk was feeling preety sore after his loss to Kamsky. One of my colleagues who played from the Kenya team at the Dresden Olympiad had this to say right ater that game:
"I went for a little tinkle and out of nowhere there came this blood-curdling scream. I quickly finished up and proceeded out of the washroom to see what was going on. Just outside was the strange appearance of Vassily Ivanchuk. Clearly he was the guy who produced that sound. The man is mad. He saw me, quickly composed himself and walked away".
"I think it is. "Concentration" while necessary to play good chess, is not the core skill needed to play the game, the way that strength and speed are in sports. You can't learn opening theory, or tactics, or calculation by taking a pill or a shot."
Yes indeed, a modest player like me cannot suddenly become world champion just by taking some magic pills. Obviously, in chess and other sports (cycling, athletics, ....) talent and hard work is needed to get near the top - but if doping helps, it could make the difference between 'very good' and 'excellent', between #10 and #1? The question if doping could make ANY sense in chess is still undecided - no evidence in favor, but no conclusive evidence to the contrary.
Concerning your remark about 'blasting up with music', indeed this is no problem. Some athletes may prefer Heavy Metal, others classical music maybe to calm down. Likewise many top chess players practice running, tennis, swimming, ... to improve their physical fitness.
There are two differences with doping: 1) these other means to improve skills not directly reflecting opening theory or tactical sharpness are freely available to everyone. On the other hand, some people have easier access to pills than others (because they can afford them and/or because they have contacts to people selling them illegally). 2) Pills can have side effects, putting one's health or even life in danger.
Item 2) above can also invalidate arguments such as "Ivanchuk had lost, why still bother with a doping test?". In other sports, doping regulations not only try to ensure fair and clean competitions, but also protect athletes against themselves, their trainers and managers, (media and public?) who may push them to strive for victory by all available means, including illegal ones.
So in some cases, doping may not have the desired effect due to an overdose or wrong combination of substances .... .
Disclaimer: Any of the above does not mean to imply that Ivanchuk had taken forbidden substances and had anything to hide! And BTW (regarding Scott Young's post): Whatever you think about FIDE officials, I am quite sure that they approached Ivanchuk rather politely, not the way you described (calling him a loser). And if FIDE officials did not find the right diplomatic words, at least the Ukrainians coming to their help probably made even more of an effort.
The law should be challenged before and not after an incident. FIDE can counter most of these arguments by saying that these rules have been in place for 4 years and every player should be aware of them.
I don't think anyone (FIDE included) think that Ivanchuk was drugged. But this is not the point.
Remember Rio Ferdinand (Man Utd defender). He missed a drugs test for very valid reasons. He was one of England's top players. Yet he was banned for 6 months.
If FIDE insist of having this ridiculous drug test, maybe they should take urine 5 mins before the start of the game not after.
Duncan
"If FIDE insist of having this ridiculous drug test, maybe they should take urine 5 mins before the start of the game not after."
Not practical .... would this be an excuse concerning the zero forfeit rule?? It may take up to, say, half an hour, to produce the required urine sample.
In any case, I would say professional players have to cope with defeat - no matter how high the tension is, no matter why the lost the game (being convincingly outplayed as Ivanchuk against Kamsky or making a terrible one-move blunder).
BTW, what was Rio Ferdinand's "very valid reason" for missing a drugs test? Wikipedia writes
"In 2003, he failed to attend a drug test, claiming he had forgotten because he was preoccupied with moving houses and instead went shopping."
This is something anyone can claim - and even if it is true it is not really convincing. Valid and verifiable reasons might be, in increasing order:
1) His car broke down.
2) He was sick and tied to his bed.
3) He had to take his wife/son/mother to hospital urgently.
And even regarding 1) and 2) above, he could at least give a call or rely on public transport - arriving late at a drugs test is a lesser rule violation than missing it altogether.
Similarly, for Ivanchuk it would still be somewhat acceptable if he had taken half an hour or an hour to calm down after his lost game ... .
Manu wrote: "I like the letter of Shirov because not only supports Chucky but also reminds to those with selective amnesia that FIDE has just broke more important rules than Ivanchuk".
Well yes, though Shirov doesn't exactly support your case of somehow seeing the rule changes as being about helping Kramnik. He mentions Topalov and Kamsky, and he's written elsewhere that they probably managed to strike a deal to guarantee their place in the next qualifier while they were negotiating the upcoming match. And Shirov isn't exactly upset about the new rules for the Grand Prix - at least it's also enough to finish second (which is good news for anyone who hasn't won one or two of the tournaments to date).
Duncan wrote: "Remember Rio Ferdinand (Man Utd defender). He missed a drugs test for very valid reasons".
I think his "valid reasons" were that he forgot and went shopping instead! I agree, though, that however understandable Ivanchuk's behavior was he made a serious mistake (but surely more efforts could have been made by the team manager etc. to get him to comply). I hope they can reach some compromise, though in the worst case scenario at least he'd only be banned from FIDE, which doesn't exclude him from playing chess.
On the whole I think drug testing in chess is reasonable, as long as they're testing for drugs that might benefit chess players. Otherwise you could get a situation where players end up feeling obliged to take amphetamines or other drugs with potentially harmful side effects.
The question of drug testing needn't be linked to trying to get chess recognised as an Olympic sport, though personally I don't see that as a bad goal - chess could do with all the publicity it can get. Of course I wouldn't wish working with FIDE on the IOC or anybody else...
Yep , thats right thx u for notice that. I dont fully agree with Shirov but i love the letter.
And i said several times that it doesnt matter who this changes benefits that is simple wrong, i also said many times that for me including Topalov is setting a trap , because everybody hates him so much that it would make the Kramnik enter unnoticed(or more like a justice act).
I remind you that the day before of the announcement Topalov said that further changes were a bad idea .
Remove the obvius , Do you honestly think that the Bulgarian camp is behind this?
Im not saying that they are babys but if this is their doing its too dumb.
Acirce,
No one here has expressed admiration for Ivanchuk's behavior. But when a rule is imposed by an organization with no moral legitimacy whatsoever, and leads to an incredibly stupid result, it is more than fair for a third-party to opine that said rule be rescinded (yes, even after the fact).
Help me out with the rule: does it at all make sense to apply the drag test to a player who lost a game? If any positive result of the drag test in this case will be against a player (and a whole team) who won clear!
"Remove the obvius , Do you honestly think that the Bulgarian camp is behind this?
Im not saying that they are babys but if this is their doing its too dumb."
I'd be surprised, though not very surprised, if Danailov was the one to come up with the candidates tournament idea, but I'd be truly amazed if he didn't discuss it with Ilyumzhinov while they were agreeing the contract for the match in Bulgaria. The fact that Kirsan was asking for an extra $100,000 or whatever it was is a fairly decent bargaining chip.
Re: Ivanchuk, he's quoted here - http://www.sports.ru/blog/khomitch/6344648.html
"This all seems like pure madness!! But such dramas sometimes happen in our world. I simply left, upset after losing a game, and didn't listen to a man who I was seeing for the first time in my life, and whose identity I still don't know. You see what a joke [comedy] it was :-)".
The author of the article claims there was no normal drug testing procedure that the players were aware of in Dresden, though I wonder how true that is.
No matter Ivanchuk gets banned or not, he should not receive partial treatment simply because he is rated 1000 pts higher than the average patzer, so I see three solutions:
1. Do nothing to chucky and overturn all prior doping related sanctions (save those patzers!)
2. Do something to chucky but nothing too painful (maybe have him write a Chessbase(TM) open letter begging for forgiveness and downgrade his ban to a slap on the wrist)
3. Ban that sucker anyway, if the chess 'scene' can do without Bobby 'Jews sux' Fischer, it can also do without Vasily 'Toilet tantrum' Ivanchuk
1. Drug-using Daily Dirt posters report improved chessic performance; what is "idiotic" about testing for drugs to remove the unfair advantage?
2. What difference does it make whether chess is an IOC sport? If drug-testing at top levels is needed to remove an unfair advantage then go ahead and test.
3. What other rules should be suspended for a) popular players or b) players throwing tantrums?
4. Since rule-violations can be manipulated to achieve "strategic forfeits," should we stop enforcing ANY rules?
5. In what other "serious" sport or activity do most of the participants and fans violently object to rules requiring them to dress appropriately, show up on time, and submit to drug testing?
You forgot one, Greg:
6. In what other "serious" sport or activity does the governing body change the play-off or championship format every year due to the whims of one man?
"Help me out with the rule: does it at all make sense to apply the drag test to a player who lost a game?"
As far as I am concerned, see my 6:22AM post (second-last paragraph).
Generally, it should be too obvious to be worthwhile mentioning, but tournament chess not only involves moving pieces on a board. Tradition and tournament organizers can impose additional rules, which may include
1) shaking hands with your opponent before and after the game
2) writing down your moves
3) some sort of dress code
4) attending press conferences and sponsor events
5) complying with drug testing rules
Not all of this applies to every tournament, but usually participants know and - implicitly or not - agree with the rules before they start their games. Sanctions can vary: nothing at all, a formal warning, a money fine, not being invited again next year, losing a single game, ... OK a two-year ban may seem out of proportion, but both rules and sanctions were known beforehand.
If you do not agree with the rules, simply don't play in this particular event! If the German media coverage is correct, Huebner, Jussupow and Timman (all former WCh candidates) refused to play on their national teams to protest against doping regulations.
Playing only on the Internet is the solution to everything: As Webcams are not compulsory, nobody cares if you sit behind your computer wearing your favorite holy (meaning hole-y) blue jeans, just a bathing suit, or nothing at all .... . If you object to writing down your moves (for some religious reason? just kidding), you can still play over the board in rapid or blitz events.
And regarding mishanp's last post, several media reported that an Ukrainian representative tried to calm down Ivanchuk and convince him to submit his urine sample. So at least, his version of the 'comedy' on www.sports.ru may be incomplete [I cannot read the original Russian version, so I have to rely on mishanp's short translation.
Stefan (Loeffler): You were the author of coverage in German newspapers - if you read this post, can you confirm the 'detail' about the Ukrainian representative (who told you, or were you a personal eye witness)? I have no reason to doubt, but it does make a difference with respect to Ivanchuk's defense strategy.
Shirov's letter is a tantrum. FIDE is stupid, ban FIDE, yada, yada, yada. All completely true, but also completely useless. FIDE does stupid thigns every day and twice on Sunday. Chess players get mad, have tantrums like Shirovs, and then ultimately get it out of their system and accept it.
Hoping that Kirsan and Co. magically become more competent is foolish. The only really positive step that could be taken would be to begin a mass movement to withdraw from FIDE entirely. If the US, Russia, Germany, and countries like that left the fold, that might mean something. But it won't happen because every time talk like that starts, people do an about face and talk about how much we need FIDE's money. So all right. If we're hooked, we're hooked. Let's just face it and stop whining. It will be a pity of we lose Ivanchuk, but if there's nothing to be done, there's nothing to be done, except maybe join Shirov's Primal Scream Workshop, for those who such things make feel better.
Seth--
An idea is not automatically clownish just because it's proposed by a clown.
greg koster,
To take your questions in order:
1) IIRC, the posters who reported greater "chessic performance" were taking caffeine tabs and the like, not stimulants banned by the IOC. My apologies if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but if so then we're not even testing for the things that theoretically improve performance. Moreover, I don't think that anecdotes posted on a message board represent a sound basis for policy when we're talking about suspending a world-class player for two years.
2) Simply put, there is no evidence that drug testing at the top is needed to remove an unfair advantage. Even Kirsan would admit that testing is being done solely for the benefit of the IOC. Since I think that chess as an Olympic sport is a stupid idea, I'm happy to argue that the costs of drug testing aren't worth the benefits -- YMMV, of course.
3) What other rules should be suspended? Any rule that is ridiculous on its face. I would start with the automatic forfeit for not shaking hands, but you could at least make a better argument for keeping that one than you can for keeping drug testing. (And yes, these are subjective judgments. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be made).
4) Um, if someone tries to intentionally get forfeited by breaking a rule, and it is actually advantageous for him to do so, then I would certainly hope that a governing body would see through his plans and adjust its ruling accordingly.
5) Bridge, for one. I apologize for my lack of skill with embedded links, but see:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20020904/UNATSM-4/Headlines/headdex/headdexNational_temp/15/15/20/
Scrabble, checkers, and backgammon, like chess, are played at an international level; as far as I know, none even bother with drug testing.
Whew! Long post, sorry.
from the previous post link:
"The World Federation of Bridge is determined to have the card game recognized as an Olympic sport"
What's next? videogames as olympic sports?
Nobody here believes that chess should be an olympic sport, but you don't fully realize how stupid is the idea until hearing about card players trying to do the same thing with their game.
"What's next? videogames as olympic sports?"
I wouldn't bet against it! Here are the current "recognised" (i.e. not quite Olympic) sports.
http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp
And there was me thinking life saving was a job :)
Anyway, whatever the prospects of Olympic chess I still think chess is an intense, time-dependent mental game where drugs could significantly alter performance. We could do with a serious discussion of what to test for and how. To date that's probably been overshadowed (rightly) by the more obvious potential for cheating by players receiving human/computer assistance during games.
> How do you say, "FIDE, taking the piss since 2002" in Latin?
FIDE: ab MMII aqua facere
"I don’t think there exists any drug which can help a chess player enhance his or her performance." -- Dronavalli Harika, 2006.
Since steroids, which the IOC is usually concerned about, aren't going to help any one play better chess, what is the point of testing for drugs? A super strong simulant, like cocaine would probably just make a player too jittery to concentrate, so why even test for that? Any one who's drank coffee by the gallon to stay awake knows that it will keep you from going to sleep, but not to be more alert.
Instead of banning Ivanchuk for refusing to be tested for dope, let's ban Kirsan for being such a dope. That's a much better idea.
I don't have any comment one way or the other on the specific incident, but the issue does come up in scholastic chess as well, with no Olympics involvement of any kind...
Drugs are banned for two reasons. First, because they create a health hazard for young competitors, often minors, who may not understand the potential long term impact. Second, because they give an unfair advantage.
The amphetamines prescribed for ADHD, including Addderall and Ritalin, do have a proven positive effect on concentration, which is why there is currently a huge scholastic controversy over their use off prescription by high school students taking entrance exams, and by college students who feel they are "a study aid."
And they also pose very clear health hazards, particularly when taken without a personal prescription and appropriate medical supervision.
When we had kids on the school chess team who were prescribed these medications for valid reasons, we did have to file a physician-signed waiver with the school district. The kids weren't even being drug tested, but if the topic came up, it had to have been officially allowed beforehand.
By the way, my understanding is that the same thing applies in some districts for any extracurricular activity, even orchestra, because of the way the district's "zero drug tolerance" rules are written. Even when there's a proper prescription and it doesn't enhance performance, prenotification is required because all participants in after school activities have to certify they are "drug free."
I don't think banning caffeine for activities like chess makes sense. But I can understand the argument against amphetamines on either of the two usual grounds.
FWIW,
Duif
I would like to see the tests in Mountaineering and Climbing. You mean, you reach the summit, feel like a young god, top of the world and everything, and then comes a greyish small man, and wants you to piss?
In latin:
Urinam capimus!
"I would like to see the tests in Mountaineering and Climbing. You mean, you reach the summit, feel like a young god, top of the world and everything, and then comes a greyish small man, and wants you to piss?"
That's exactly what happens at the Tour de France after cyclists climbed in the Alps .... and unfortunately it is necessary all too often.
frogbert,
"Correctly" seems to be to nice of a word here. What I mean is that since the cycle has not started, rule changes will not affect result. If they change the rule after the cycle started, then it is totally absurd. Imagine Doha took place, afterwards FIDE says that the winner of Doha will not be in the cycle, but the winner of Kirsanland (Kalmykia) which is played end Dec 08.
This does not mean that I agree with FIDE's way of keeping changing the rule; they are not acting like a governing body at all here. I totally don't understand why they can't let they cycle start, seek for improvement area, and implement the improvement in the next cycle.
SetNoEscapeOn,
Thomas @ 3-Dec-08, 6:22am has given a good response. Nothing more needed from me.
The only way to stop this nonsense is some communism NOW! Let the Top 50 chess players decide not to play in any FIDE tournament for the time Ivanchuk will be banned.
Even better: Let Wijk aan Zee, Linares Sofia and Dortmund etc., all those top tournaments, tell FIDE: We are not going to be FIDE events for the time Ivanchuk is banned. That means a) Ivanchuk will be able to participate in them and b) The whole new World Championship Cycle will be null and void. (How do you rate players who do not play in FIDE tournaments?).
The result is easy: FIDE has the option to ban Ivanchuk and as a result lose the top players for the time he is banned as well as lose a lot of money due to a missing attractive World Championship Cycle. Or tell the IOC that Ivanchuk was really pissed about his loss and that the result itself shows that he did not dope. So the IOC gets both their urine sample as well as the result of the test.
"What I mean is that since the cycle has not started, rule changes will not affect result."
tsn, i don't know where you have been, but the 2008-2011 cycle started more than half a year ago!
2 of 6 grand prix events have already been played.
the players' undertakings were signed one year ago.
where is our misunderstanding?!?
Actually, do not forget the whole point of trying to get into the olympics - $$. If chess is successful in attracting sponsorship on its own, it would save a lot of pointless discussion. But as we can clearly now, it is not very successful when very often it is relying on its prime patron who also happens to be the president of the governing body.
"And don't forget the drug testing isn't just for largely nonexistent IOC privileges, there is also substantial money involved."
Can someone explain to me why there's substantial money involved?
Also, I thought the IOC basically said chess will never be an Olympic sport. Why does FIDE care so much about pleasing them?
The tests are not cheap and considerable money changes hands for the testing. As usual, when money moves across the desks of bureaucrats, some of it gets stuck to their fingers.
"FIDE has needed a new slogan for a while now. How do you say, "FIDE, taking the piss since 2002" in Latin?"
Well done.
Gata Kamsky posted this in Russian on the Chesspro.ru forum: (apologies for any mistakes in the translation)
"Hello everyone. Ok, I can finally explain what actually happened after my game with Vassily, as it all happened before my eyes.
Straight after the game finished, the arbiter !!! of the team match (there was no official person specially assigned for the mission) told us both in English that we had to go through doping control. I was very surprised, but I nodded that I was ready to do it.
Vassily didn't immediately understand what they wanted from him, and went towards the exit. The arbiter followed him and continued to explain. I then couldn't resist and told Vassily what they wanted. Then Vassily raised his arms and flatly refused. The arbiter called the captain of the Ukrainian team, the respected GM, who was also clearly in a bad mood. It's true he said something to Vassily, but Vassily still refused.
Of course I tried to explain to the arbiter that it was a very important match and there simply wasn't any point in testing the man who had just lost the game. No logic at all from a sporting point of view.
Of course no one tried to explain to Vassily what would happen if he refused to undergo the control. The arbiter himself wasn't competent enough, as we had to go to other arbiters to get directions to the place they were doing the control. Nobody knew. The situation was unprecedented. Finally, after we went to the FIDE room I looked in there, asked Makro where the doping control room was and a man came out to lead us there.
After that I went through the doping control, an interesting enough procedure, if you've never seen it before.
So that's basically everything that happened. Of course it was strange that the Ukrainian team didn't appear at the closing ceremony, after all it's the Olympiad, genus una sumus, where the taking part in the competition is after all more important than the sporting result, but that's just my personal opinion.
Unfortunately I can't say anything about the changes to the Grand Prix cycle or my negotiations with FIDE. That topic's closed on account of confidentiality. The only thing I can say is that I was also against the changes, in the beginning".
It's possible Kamsky's final words should read "from the beginning", which would of course alter the meaning!?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Again, I can't say anything about this specific situation, but I did want to comment on the idea that it's not necessary to drug test the losers in drug-controlled competitions.
Even if we set aside the health concern issue that applies to scholastic sports, the unfair advantage argument can apply at levels below an absolute win. Artifically placing 15th instead of 16th is still unfair to the people below you. Even just making the team for an international event is competitive, and shouldn't depend on an unfair advantage.
There is also the logical argument, used in most sports that drug test, that you should always test the runnerup since what happens if the winner is later disqualified, perhaps because of the drug test? Obviously you don't want to then turn around and give the point to someone who was breaking the same rule.
Personally I don't feel drug tests are useful for international chess competitions, but then I don't feel chess can be classified as a sport.
But if you are going to have them, then it does make sense to either test everyone or do random testing. And it certainly seems to make sense to test the person who moves into the winner spot if the original winner is disqualified.
Respectfully,
Duif
So we are pretending that chess players dont take drugs to enhance performance? This is such hypocrasy both stimulants/amphetimines and drugs like modafinil are taken and do enhance concentration and memory. There is nothing nonsensical about random testing at top events. Its nonsensical to shut our eyes and say its not happening. The rules are known and fair and apply to all players even those at the top. If people object to the rules than dont play in the tournament - thats an effective and reasonable protest. But to play and act like a baby after losing as if the rules dont apply to top players. World Champion Anand was prepared to undergo testing why not Ivanchuk?
I wouldn't use an 18 year old as an expert witness on drug efficacy:
"I don’t think there exists any drug which can help a chess player enhance his or her performance." -- Dronavalli Harika, 2006.
Duif, I agree with most of your posts (well, I wrote similar things myself). I just want to add that health concern issues do not, or should not, apply to scholastic sports only. Obviously, minors may not fully realize "what they are doing to their bodies" (in the long term) - for the same reason, tobacco and alcohol are only legal after a certain age.
On the other hand, in cycling there is/was a situation where athletes may argue "most of my competitors use doping, so I have to do the same". In other words, "doping is required to restore equal chances"(?). And sometimes it was even argued "if doping is part and parcel of our sport, let's just legalize it!" I would object because of health concerns.
BTW: I referred to cycling several times not because I think that other sports are (completely or comparatively) clean. But in cycling doping, both individual and systematic (entire teams), has received lots of media attention - so here people may more readily understand what I am talking about
To add something on the potential role of doping in chess: Obviously it will never be comparable to other sports. In cycling (I can add athletics as another example), if one participant performs far better than the rest and maybe scores a fabulous world record, people may nowadays almost automatically react "this must be doping!". Of course everyone is innocent until/unless proven guilty, but in many cases suspicions turned out to be well-founded.
In chess, if a player finds a spectacular sacrifical attack, noone will cry "amphetamines!!" but could suspect forbidden computer assistance if the combination is evaluated as completely correct by Rybka and colleagues .... . The proof is far more difficult if not impossible - a player can only undisguise himself by announcing mate in 8 in an unclear position .... .
And there is one difference: In the case of doping it does not matter at all if you take your pills before or during the competition. In chess, _pre-game_ computer assistance (or post-game analysis) is perfectly legal. It is very obvious that Anand used "computer doping" to obtain/defend his WCh title - before the games to check and fine-tune his opening preparation.
I don't mean to antagonize, but that post was for me bereft of meaning.
"And there is one difference: In the case of doping it does not matter at all if you take your pills before or during the competition. In chess, _pre-game_ computer assistance (or post-game analysis) is perfectly legal"
??????????
What is the central argument here? That computer analysis is the same as doping? They are surely separate issues.
"In chess, if a player finds a spectacular sacrifical attack, noone will cry "amphetamines!!" but could suspect forbidden computer assistance if the combination is evaluated as completely correct by Rybka and colleagues .... . The proof is far more difficult if not impossible - a player can only undisguise himself by announcing mate in 8 in an unclear position .... ."
And this is very murky stuff too.
One point about drug testing - it is not necessarily that the drugs being tested for help you in a particular sport, just that athletes shouldn't have those drugs in their body. Nearly everything on that list is illegal anyway.
Pro sports do test for things that can impair performance, for the same reasons other employers do: it means they're not getting the performance they pay for, poor performance may physically imperil other employees, and employees with addiction issues are more likely to steal (or fix games).
Again, my personal feeling is that these issues don't tend to arise in chess because we don't have long term engagements and no one's driving a forklift through the tournament hall (at least, I hope not!).
Duif
Like it or not, Duif, IOC recognition of chess has brought more money to chess than anything else Kirsan has done. It is the only bright spot of his entire tenure as FIDE President.
To chesshire cat and anyone else who may be puzzled: Sorry if my post was unclear, possibly because 1) I tried to keep it within 'reasonable length', 2) I assumed the incident I referred to is widely known and remembered (but it goes back to 1999, possibly forgotten to some and never heard of at least to rather young people on this forum).
My main point was (or should have been) that doping is unlikely to dominate chess the way it dominates some other sports - or at least that the most spectacular performances are not due to doping. Amphetamines can maybe help to stay awake and focused in a difficult endgame after six hours of play, not the type of game receiving lots of public attention .... .
So, illegal computer assistance is more of an issue - obviously not the same as doping, but clearly a separate issue (I completely agree with chesshire cat!). The incidence I was hinting at is the 'Allwermann case': At a German open tournament, the unknown amateur Clemens Allwermann rated 1920 was suddenly beating one strong grandmaster after thee other, for a performance of 2630. At the time, he was not a promising teenager but aged 55, with his rating stable over the prior 20 years. The full story is (still) at
http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=190
In the last-round game against GM Kalinitschew, Allwermann played very complex tactical lines instead of simple winning moves, because Fritz's evaluation of the first was 0.10 pawns higher ... . When his opponent resigned, he replied "Yes indeed, it is mate in eight". As far as I remember, it was never found out how exactly Allwermann received computer assistance, but it was beyond any reasonable doubt that he was cheating.
And maybe 'undisguise' is not the right English word in the last sentence of my earlier post - I am not a native speaker ... .
Hopefully things have become a bit more clear - if not, don't hesitate to ask again ... .
Ah so... my bad, frogbert.
I've been around, but not much around chess, unfortunately. Thanks for your clarification.
If that's the case, then FIDE has shown consistency in NOT doing the right thing.
I've just read that Magnus is withdrawing from the cycle. Hopefully all players will do the same thing. Then the cycle will be more of a Russia + Kalmykia open chess championship :)
well, the winner Wang Yue will not be withdrawing, he is even hoping to extend his non-losing streak
Drugs help chess players in serious high presured tournaments at every phase of the gane opening middle game and endgame. They give energy improved memeory and concentration - which is absolutely vital especially in th later rounds. Whether computer use during games is a bigger probelem - no one knows, But there are anti computer rules at the very highest events eg body scans refusal to accept this would lead to loss of the match or expulsion from the tournament. Its exactly the same with anti doping measures - they are clear and known by all the participants. Only a tiny perecentage are tested in something like the Olympiad and there can be no reasonable excuse for a refusal to take the test. A refusal indicates guilt ie the person is afraid banned drugs will be detected. Its irrelevant whether its the no 3 player ir the number 253 player he or she has to be sanctioned under the rules
Andy, I agree with most of your post - and I certainly did not mean to imply "computer assistance during games is a bigger problem, so let's forget about doping tests". The computer problem is widely acknowledged - Allwermann and other cases indicated that it can work in practice. So everyone refusing to comply with anti computer rules would clearly be suspicious, and there would be no valid excuse .... .
But the (potential) doping problem does not become irrelevant just because there is another serious problem concerning computer assistance.
I may disagree (or at least not be as categoric) concerning your later statement:
" A refusal indicates guilt ie the person is afraid banned drugs will be detected. "
As far as Ivanchuk is concerned, he was 'simply' pissed and out of touch with reality after losing an important game. Arguably, this is a more valid excuse than by football player Rio Ferdinand ("I simply forgot about it and went shopping instead.")
I find this remark revealing in Kamsky's comment:
"Of course no one tried to explain to Vassily what would happen if he refused to undergo the control."
If I was a lawyer defending Ivanchuk vs FIDE I guess I would center my argument around this. As long as FIDE has such an astonishingly unprofessional approach to these matters it should claim no right whatsoever to punish or ban a player.
If we are to have doping tests in chess they should be conducted by the appropriate people, not an arbiter - players need to be informed by professional interpreters and not Kamsky trying to translate something - the player should need to sign a document stating they clearly understand the consequences of refusing the test, and so on.
The way this seems to have been done is a joke, therefore there is no place for any serious consequence.
FIDE should have been ripped apart by able lawyers years ago - and they would've had a field day doing it.
Something else: in "normal" sports most of the doping tests take part in the training period.
If we're talking testing for meth because it enhances memory, obviously that's most relevant when preparing for a tournament and not during.
So are we to see WADA people turning up in chess clubs, or going to Ivanchuk's place in Lviv when he's analyzing an opening, wait until he plays thorugh a variation in the Sicilian and politely ask him to take the test in his bathroom?
Chessgrrrl: I am not sure if your suggested defense strategy would work, not only because FIDE also has 'able lawyers' .... : The consequences of refusing a doping test are clearly indicated in the written rules; while it would have been appropriate to give Ivanchuk a reminder, I am not sure this is relevant or required from a legal point of view (but no, I am not a lawyer myself).
The arbiter did not _conduct_ the doping test, he only informed the players. Ivanchuk's defense was partly based on "I have never seen that man before". Well, in professional chess (like in many other professions) sometimes you have to deal with people you have never met before. A solution would be that FIDE representatives have to wear official uniforms to be recognizable as such ??? Or that FIDE has to rely on the local police wearing uniforms ??? Whoever is the person in charge, I also think it is unreasonable to expect that he/she speaks many different languages (English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, .......) or is accompanied by someone who does.
And concerning chessgrrrl's second post: Theoretically this is possible; as far as I remember, the FIDE rules concerning doping (presumably adapted or rather Copy-Paste from other sports) include a statement that (top?) players have to inform the doping authorities about their whereabouts.
Which reminds me of an interview with the European 10,000m champion Jan Fitshcen. Among other things he said "When I have a new girl friend, doping authorities are the first ones to know .... before I get a chance (or feel like) informing my parents."
"it enhances memory, obviously that's most relevant when preparing for a tournament and not during." ??? Well obviously when you are playing in the tournament thats when you need all the help you can get to remember your preperation, games etc Its exactly duirng play that this kind of help is beneficial the pressure of playing a lot of games is immense. Thats why some chess players do take drugs to aid concentraion and memory and mental alertness. Thats the ONLY time it might be beneficial during prperation you have time and drugs are irrelevant
Andy,
ask students why they take "study aids" when prepairing for an exam and not just for the exam itself...
The German Chessbase site quotes an interview with Viktor Petrov, president of the Ukrainian chess federation - original source
http://sport.oboz.ua/news/2008/12/2/58386.htm
Here is my translation from German to English, based on the earlier translation from Russian (or Ukrainian?) into German:
"We have obtained official confirmation from FIDE that Ivanchuk has not passed the doping test. FIDE further states that they give Ivanchuk three months time to do a doping test in order to decide the issue. We have forwarded this request to Ivanchuk, and he is aware of his responsibility. I am convinced that the problem will be resolved in time."
In time for what ?? In any case, I had stated earlier that it might have been reasonable to give Ivanchuk half an hour or an hour to calm down after his loss; three months should be enough !!??
As Kramnik had said after losing the world championship match against Anand (with all respect to the Olympiad, a still more prestigious event): "It's only a game after all ..."
Indeed, "in time" could mean 'three months must be enough for Ivanchuk to come to his senses'!?
IF he still does not comply, people may call him a hero, a stupid fool, or simply call him Chucky ... but he cannot (no longer) claim that he was not aware of the consequences