Why FIDE wants drug tests
parrt...@cs.com
80).
Not Keene On Testing
Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a
single game of chess. Yet FIDE is now pushing for universal drug
testing on the pretext of getting chess into the Olympics, thus making
it eligible for government funding in many nations.
The Spanish Chess Federation, for example, receives about $320,000 a
year from the Council of Sports for testing 20 players at random. More
than 100 substances are banned, including excess levels of alcohol,
cannabis, and coffee.
Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess
than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in
tournaments.Branding chess as an athletic endeavor is ludicrous, and
the United States Olympic Committee had the good sense to reject this
hobby as a sport.
FIDE Goes Beserk
Although chess is unlikely ever to become an Olympic sport, that
doesn't stop the bureaucrats from imposing their silly regulations.
"FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug
testing will not be able to play chess," wrote Dr. Stephen Press, vice-
chairman of FIDE's medical commission.
"It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred
soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever
contemplate a career as a professional chess player," noted Dutch
grandmaster Hans Ree. "It is hard to say who are more despicable, the
FIDE bosses who invented this horror, the chess federations that saw
it happen but did nothing to prevent it, or those players who will
meekly submit to these senseless humiliations."
"The Olympics are for physical sports, not board games. Their motto is
'Faster, Stronger, Higher.'-not Cleverer," noted an outraged amateur.
"Certain drugs can significantly improve athletic performance, while
at the same time often harming the athletes who take them. No such
problem has been established in chess, and chess players are therefore
properly suspicious and even resentful when told they have to be drug
tested. I have no sympathy with the people who claim they are fighting
to get chess into the Olympics; and I have actual animus toward
officials who try to impose controls on chess with the excuse that the
Olympics requires drug testing."
Ray Keene, Britain's leading chess authority, argues that the real
agenda is to control the careers of players. Some excerpts from his
article in the Spectator:
· Performance enhancing drugs-steroids of the mind as it were-are not
and never have been a problem in chess.
· Although chess bureaucrats are enthusiastic about these new
regulations, players as a whole are neither ready nor willing to
submit to wholesale drug testing.
· FIDE's initiative is designed to extend bureaucratic control over
players who are inconveniently insubordinate rather than to stamp out
any real abuse in chess.
· Why do chess officials waste their time on this kind of nonsense
when it is clear that their constituencies have absolutely no interest
in it?
· This syndrome is absolutely rife in politics. I have seen it so many
times before. FIDE Delegates imperceptibly at first cease to represent
the views of their own country-instead they start to represent FIDE's
views to their country, thus becoming
a kind of fifth column! That is why nation states continually revolve
their ambassadors before they 'go native' in the quaint phraseology of
the British Foreign Office.
· The key is often insidious hospitality. Once the naive backwoods
chess politician starts rubbing shoulders with the FIDE bigwigs,
invitations to dinner start coming in, exclusive gatherings of top
people. It's not so much gifts and bribes as corruption by
association.
· We know what's best for Ivan and Ivan should shut up and take his
medicine. After all it's good for him and good for chess. Discipline-
that's what Ivan needs.
marcusw...@hughes.net
Dear Larry,
I take ATENOLEL 50 mg twice per day. It is a beta blocker, and slows
my heart rate.
Please explain to me how I am supposed to, in the position of head of
state for chess
on St Kitts and Nevis, in a war with Kirsan over admission, and keep
my MEDICAL FILES PRIVATE?
The facts are I can "cheat" with this drug, but I see no advantage of
having my heart
beat slower. It might help combining caffeine with a beta blocker, but
the bottom line
is that Tim Redman and the FIDE medical committee admits that FIDE has
not decided
the exact list of "banned" drugs from chess.
I might add, I don't see the USA Fide Delegate pissing in a cup, or
Kirsan pissing in a cup???
Does anyone honestly believe that I have any legal recourse for the
privacy of my medical files?
How exactly am I supposed to maintain privacy, and honor the
soverignenty of a nation that I do
seem to respresnt in FIDE, in absense of anyone else.
Nobody can play chess in the World Chess Championship from St Kitts
and Nevis, becasue the only
player takes a banned drug....
Sincerely,
Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
marcusw...@hughes.net
"It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred
soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever
contemplate a career as a professional chess player..."
That's exactly right! Drug testing works in the NFL because the higher
end paychecks are millions of dollars per year. In Chess, nobody makes
anywhere that kind of money compared to true professional sports
ATHLETES.
We are in a situation where a computer can beat any human, and the
world
chess association is planned to combine Kirsan's personal desires to
become
President of Russia with domination of the entire world of chess. This
is about
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, and his lust to rule Russia, not chess. If Kirsan
had the money,
he would certainly drug test you or I for writing this if we appeared
in his corrupt
Russian Republic.
We are nothing more than virtual citizens of Kalmykia, and pawns in
Ilyumzhinov
desires to govern Russia, and almost certainly start a nuclear war
with the USA.
The FIDE Delegates themselves fear Ilyumzhinov; most of them would be
silenced if they did not agree with the party line.
I wonder if Kirsan has plans to take over Russia, for himself? I bet
Kirsan could not pass
a drug test, and he secretly videotapes people pissing so he can
arouse himself.
Marcus Roberts
help bot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a
> single game of chess.
Wow. It appears that Larry Evans has developed a God
complex. He now believes he "knows" everything under the
sun, including events (or nonevents) before he was even born.
This is not looking good.
> Yet FIDE is now pushing for universal drug
> testing on the pretext of getting chess into the Olympics, thus making
> it eligible for government funding in many nations.
>
> The Spanish Chess Federation, for example, receives about $320,000 a
> year from the Council of Sports for testing 20 players at random. More
> than 100 substances are banned, including excess levels of alcohol,
> cannabis, and coffee.
Many of the players I have known would strenuously
object to testing for cannabis, but testing for this or
for alcohol makes no sense, as those are not mental
performance-enhancement drugs at all -- just the
opposite. I would note that LE deliberately chose
these three examples, while craftily avoiding any
mention of substances like cocaine, for instance;
think about why he would do that.
> Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess
> than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in
> tournaments.
How about high entry fees, in conjunction with small
prizes? That works /very well/ in my area, driving
away countless players who would otherwise have
entered tourneys.
As for the USCF, they appear to have recently allowed
chess ratings to drift lower over time, and this does not
exactly engender greater tournament participation. Try
to imagine that (almost) everyone is getting weaker at
chess: what effect would this have on participation?
Even those who study cannot seem to "improve" much,
judging by what I have seen lately. Many players are
sitting on a rating floor, watching the tide roll away --
as in a famous song.
> Ray Keene, Britain's leading chess authority, argues that the real
> agenda is to control the careers of players. Some excerpts from his
> article in the Spectator:
>
> · Performance enhancing drugs-steroids of the mind as it were-are not
> and never have been a problem in chess.
This statement seems to have been transmuted -- and
grotesquely distorted -- by Larry Evans, above.
> · Although chess bureaucrats are enthusiastic about these new
> regulations, players as a whole are neither ready nor willing to
> submit to wholesale drug testing.
>
> · FIDE's initiative is designed to extend bureaucratic control over
> players who are inconveniently insubordinate rather than to stamp out
> any real abuse in chess.
False dichotomy. Already a third possibility was
presented: that of trying to get easy money out of
the Olympics. In view of FIDE's long history of
greed over principle, there is simply no need to
postulate any other motive here; it is redundant,
and appears here unsupported by facts.
Much of what Ray Keene said makes sense, but
neither he nor Larry Parr-Evans has given any
substance here to back the accusation of FIDE
attempting to do anything other than get chess
into the Olympics /for the money/.
-- help bot
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>anyone to win a single game of chess.
Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194340196.7...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a
> single game of chess.
<...>
> Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess
> than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in
> tournaments.
**I can. Advertise actual factors which are offensive in chess.
How about high entry fees, in conjunction with small
prizes? That works /very well/ in my area, driving
away countless players who would otherwise have
entered tourneys.
**How about spending money on background checks for chess officials instead
of on durg testing?
<....>
> · FIDE's initiative is designed to extend bureaucratic control over
> players who are inconveniently insubordinate rather than to stamp out
> any real abuse in chess.
False dichotomy. Already a third possibility was
presented: that of trying to get easy money out of
the Olympics. In view of FIDE's long history of
greed over principle, there is simply no need to
postulate any other motive here; it is redundant,
and appears here unsupported by facts.
**The Rule is that Money follows Power. Fide is an organisation in name, yet
its orientation to chess as is its president to its own 100% democracy
one-party state. In other words, it is in a monopoly position without being
in a representative position.
Much of what Ray Keene said makes sense, but
neither he nor Larry Parr-Evans has given any
substance here to back the accusation of FIDE
attempting to do anything other than get chess
into the Olympics /for the money/.
**Multi-millionairres do not need to generate money as much as ciruclate
money, as a means to /exhibit/ their power. That is the pathology of your
Plutocrat.
Phil Innes
The People's Paradise,
Vermont
-- help bot
help bot
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled
> >anyone to win a single game of chess.
>
> Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge.
I found a very interesting statement at Wikipedia, probably
snatched from another article somewhere:
"Adderall is a stimulant which taken at the right dose helps with
concentration. Research done by the National Institute of Drug
Abuse (NIDA) shows the more competitive the college, the higher
the incidence of stimulant use."
Think about this for a moment. If college students tend to use
such drugs in competitive situations, what do you suppose are
the implications for professionals who /compete for a living/?
-- help bot
No wonder I don't always win easily against grandmasters. ;>D
help bot
> > Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess
> > than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in
> > tournaments.
>
> **I can. Advertise actual factors which are offensive in chess.
Cheating; I find it very offensive.
Thus far, inconsideration -- as in talking and making
noise while others are still playing -- has not bothered
me much; maybe that's because I am usually winning
though.
> How about high entry fees, in conjunction with small
> prizes? That works /very well/ in my area, driving
> away countless players who would otherwise have
> entered tourneys.
>
> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials instead
> of on durg testing?
Whose money? Certainly not *my* money.
BTW, such tests may be able to pinpoint many past
offenders, but they are no good when it comes to /new/
crazies, nor do they detect the smart ones, who of
course have not been caught before. (I am reminded
of certain detective shows on TV; the criminals make
mistake after mistake, but only after such errors have
accumulated into a sizable mass do the police manage
to stumble across the solution. Consider the Charles
Manson case, for instance.)
> **The Rule is that Money follows Power.
Please find Power and tell him to meet me at
midnight in the alley behind Bugaloo's Sports Bar.
I'll be lying in wait for the next guy who walks past
after him (don't try to tell me he never carries Cash,
Diamonds or Gold).
> Fide is an organisation in name, yet
> its orientation to chess as is its president to its own 100% democracy
> one-party state.
Yeah -- whatever that means.
> In other words, it is in a monopoly position without being
> in a representative position.
Nobody complained when forces inside the USCF
managed to manipulate FIDE into accepting BF,
although he did not even qualify. But when someone
else gets a hand in, the groans never cease.
Even today, the FIDE Web site proclaims as Mr.
Campomanes' great achievement, the spread of
chess to third world countries; but because this
came at the expense of things not going "our" way,
the moaning about it persists. (It's rather like the
behavior of a child who does not get his own way
/all the time/.)
> **Multi-millionairres do not need to generate money as much as ciruclate
> money, as a means to /exhibit/ their power. That is the pathology of your
> Plutocrat.
Speaking of pathos, the idea that FIDE or its evil
minions belong to me, is beyond all reason.
> The People's Paradise,
> Vermont
So we were told in the last presidential election, by
Howard Dean. I believe he claimed that everyone in
Vermont had perfect health (care), a job, a nice
house, nice clothes, a loyal dog, and above-average
children. It sounded so good I was going to vote for
him and then move there, but something went awry... .
-- help bot
Chess One
>> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials
>> instead
>> of on durg testing?
>
> Whose money? Certainly not *my* money.
whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting
offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend
money on chess events
> BTW, such tests may be able to pinpoint many past
> offenders, but they are no good when it comes to /new/
> crazies, nor do they detect the smart ones, who of
> course have not been caught before.
yes - this is true, and new opportunities have arisen via the net for
stalking, several examples in chess - yet what screening does is eliminate
those who would cause offense based on their known behavior - and screening
is continuous, so that it [poorly, for sure] balances the need for privacy
in modern life, to likely gross offence to someone else's life
this subject is particualrly difficult for americans, no?
> (I am reminded
> of certain detective shows on TV; the criminals make
> mistake after mistake, but only after such errors have
> accumulated into a sizable mass do the police manage
> to stumble across the solution. Consider the Charles
> Manson case, for instance.)
fucking children is no tv show episode, comrade
and tv a very uncertain guide to the mores of our times, sometimes indeed,
it seems to celebrate female stalking, especially
[you ever notice this?]
>> **The Rule is that Money follows Power.
>
> Please find Power and tell him to meet me at
> midnight in the alley behind Bugaloo's Sports Bar.
> I'll be lying in wait for the next guy who walks past
> after him (don't try to tell me he never carries Cash,
> Diamonds or Gold).
>
>
>> Fide is an organisation in name, yet
>> its orientation to chess as is its president to its own 100% democracy
>> one-party state.
>
> Yeah -- whatever that means.
Fide is only its president's aura - and if you suppose yourself to address
either offenses to kids, or the joys of the one-party state, be so kind as
to inform yourself before venturing an opinion, rather than goofy
abstractions about things which you lack the balls to look at
This subject is not net-chat. It is measured in blood
If you have no pain, don't tell me what 'nobody did', since you don't care
more than they [didn't]
Phil Innes
help bot
> >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials
> >> instead of on durg testing?
>
> > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money.
>
> whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting
> offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend
> money on chess events
Nice, um, dodge.
Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse
to answer where the money you want to spend will come
from. How about a deal? If you can't manage the guts to
specify *whose* money you are spending, just propose
doing nothing, since that doesn't cost any money. You'll
at least get the Libertarian vote.
> > BTW, such tests may be able to pinpoint many past
> > offenders, but they are no good when it comes to /new/
> > crazies, nor do they detect the smart ones, who of
> > course have not been caught before.
>
> yes - this is true, and new opportunities have arisen via the net for
> stalking, several examples in chess - yet what screening does is eliminate
> those who would cause offense based on their known behavior - and screening
> is continuous, so that it [poorly, for sure] balances the need for privacy
> in modern life, to likely gross offence to someone else's life
When you write "cause offense", it sounds very much
like an attack on SS. But many, if not most, of the kids
involved in chess fall outside his target area, and by
extension, the target areas of others like him.
What worries me is that, like a disinfectant that is
claimed to eliminate 99% of germs, you are missing
the ones which are the most dangerous of all. Even
so, this is not a bad idea, but it is /not sufficient/ to
get the whole job done.
> this subject is particualrly difficult for americans, no?
>
> > (I am reminded
> > of certain detective shows on TV; the criminals make
> > mistake after mistake, but only after such errors have
> > accumulated into a sizable mass do the police manage
> > to stumble across the solution. Consider the Charles
> > Manson case, for instance.)
>
> fucking children is no tv show episode, comrade
On second thought, I think offensive types /should/
be rounded up and thrown into the clinker. I am
definitely going to vote for this, no matter what the cost.
Once these scum are rounded up and disposed of, then
we can worry about what to do about the ones who got
away.
-- help bot
Chess One
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:N5qdnce7FqUHyK3a...@pghconnect.com...
> >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled
>>anyone to win a single game of chess.
>
> Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge.
John Fernandez was probably the biggest promoter of drug testing in the USA.
He admitted in these newsgroups he took Ritalin to calm himself down.
The issue is always if such things provide an /unfair/ edge. Personally,
whether uppers or downers, I would be quite happy to play anyone drugged up
to the eyeballs.
All that is happening is that the person is seeking their own equilibrium
[no pun intended]
A wise man once wrote in these newsgroups,
'you know, the brain makes drugs of its own'.
And that I think hits the very center of the issues, since a candid
assessment of the issue admits the superiority of that fact over any other
method, and is an absolutely winning comment.
Phil Innes
Chess One
> On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials
>> >> instead of on durg testing?
>>
>> > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money.
>>
>> whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting
>> offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend
>> money on chess events
>
> Nice, um, dodge.
>
> Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse
Kennedy. I already replied. When I ask you, you duck. That's okay, but its
also /tilt/ and game over.
What I answered is that those who care will pay. If you start your posts
with such personal diffidence, I do not wish to continue the subject with
you - because I have no wish nor need to compel you to my opinion, and also
because you cannot state your own.
Phil Innes
help bot
> >> >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials
> >> >> instead of on durg testing?
>
> >> > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money.
>
> >> whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting
> >> offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend
> >> money on chess events
>
> > Nice, um, dodge.
>
> > Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse
>
> Kennedy. I already replied. When I ask you, you duck. That's okay, but its
> also /tilt/ and game over.
>
> What I answered is that those who care will pay.
Nice switcharoo. You duck, then dodge, then
proclaim that you "already answered" the direct
question.
This rings familiar, now that I think about it. Many
others have complained before about precisely the
same sort of behavior from nearly-an-IM before.
> If you start your posts with such personal diffidence,
Idiot, heal thyself! There is nobody in rgc who is more
guilty of your complaint than the ratpackers themselves,
so this comes off as *titanic hypocrisy*.
If you are truly against "personal diffidence", then by
golly show it with your actions, not words.
> I do not wish to continue the subject with
> you - because I have no wish nor need to compel you to my opinion, and also
> because you cannot state your own.
My opinion is merely that your interest in this
subject is a pretense; it always comes up when
you find yourself under attack by a multitude
for not writing about chess issues, right after you
have just attacked others for the same offense.
In sum, it is a self-defense mechanism, not a
true interest on your part. The subject fades
into darkness until the next volley finds you in
a spot of trouble, needing a convenient tool.
-- help bot
Larry Tapper
> >From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page
>
> 80).
>
> Not Keene On Testing
>
> Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a
I wonder whether Larry Evans has asked his friend Lev Alburt for his
opinion on this matter.
In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was
halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he
insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of
performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to
Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant
strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would
eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion.
It is of course possible to put Alburt's conjecture in the same
category as Russian rumors about parapsychology and mind control,
widely believed but not substantiated scientifically. But it does not
seem implausible to me generally that certain drugs could enhance
chess performance, at least on an occasional ad hoc basis. Wouldn't a
small dose of amphetamines help after a sleepless night?
Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument.
Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me
pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing.
Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic
recognition seems to have collapsed.
Larry T.
SBD
There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of
testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased
testosterone levels.
It seems to me that the disingenuous ploy to mandate drug testing has
only been met by the equally disingenuous "no one has shown that drugs
can enhance chess performance!" I would bet that there are substances
that can enhance chess performance , which will be shown as sure as it
is important (no Olympics, no money in chess, no one cares).
There is also the "nervous grandma" view that cannabis, and so on must
also be tested for to show "purity" in the game. Wasn't one of "Dr."
Press' arguments that drug testing was "for the children"? Drivel on
one side, drivel on the other, just a bunch of spoiled children
arguing over a ball.
help bot
> In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was
> halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he
> insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of
> performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to
> Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant
> strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would
> eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion.
Too bad he couldn't have expounded on this, um,
"strategy" beforehand. It's all too easy to come up
with such speculations after the fact, fitting the actual
outcome to some random theory, created on a whim.
Of course one titanic hole is that this implies total
control of game outcomes by just one player. It also
seems to imply that GKs wins were flukes, and his
losses, *failures* in his execution of this supposed
"strategy". Another small difficulty lies in the
imbecilic assumption of GK not being able to win
the match outright via superior play -- which is just
plain silly, and a slap in the face to Gary Kasparov's
chess skill.
My view is that given his stellar performances just
prior to the K vs. K match, GK and his team may
well have expected another victory, just not quite
so one-sided in terms of score. The idea that this
imagined "strategy" could even come into play
requires a foreknowledge of the very extraordinary
events, including but not limited to:
a) GM Karpov unexpectedly taking a huge lead at the very start
b) GM Kasparov grabbing the cliff's edge with his fingertips
c) GM Karpov being unable to pry a finger or two loose, in
spite of numerous opportunities
d) Knowledge in advance that if the match were stopped, the
actual score would just be thrown out and a continuance
rejected (Wow)
e) Belief that even after AK had "inevitably" lost fifty pounds
and was a mere skeleton, GK could STILL not take the
match!!!
These add up to an asinine insult of GK's playing skill.
Do not forget who we are talking about here -- the first
human player in history to break 2800.
> It is of course possible to put Alburt's conjecture in the same
> category as Russian rumors about parapsychology and mind control,
> widely believed but not substantiated scientifically. But it does not
> seem implausible to me generally that certain drugs could enhance
> chess performance, at least on an occasional ad hoc basis. Wouldn't a
> small dose of amphetamines help after a sleepless night?
Yes, it would. But the problem is that uppers, just
like caffeine or other drugs, have a "payback" phase.
As GM Fischer might put it: to get blank, you have to
give blank.
> Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument.
> Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me
> pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing.
> Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic
> recognition seems to have collapsed.
The general drift of /Larry Evans'/ argument seems to
have been: deliberately ignore the facts; swing wide
to avoid any mention of drugs like amphetamines or
actual research into the effects of such drugs; deny
reality; attack FIDE.
Obviously, this does not imply that no reasoned
argument could be made by a more rational person.
For instance, a few of the drugs mentioned have no
positive effect on chess performance, but quite the
opposite; testing for them makes no sense, even
*if* the idea of drug-testing were universally
approved, which it isn't.
-- help bot
help bot
> There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of
> testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased
> testosterone levels.
Can you tell us more about that study?
For instance, if they went to the Galactic Open and
waited 'till it was over, then tested and found that the
winners had higher levels, it could just mean that
young players tend to do better than older ones under
the grueling conditions on Mars/or a B. Goichberg event.
If what you meant was that winners tended to have
higher levels than losers, it could indicate that the
"will to win" is closely related to testosterone levels,
which again are related to age and sex.
> It seems to me that the disingenuous ploy to mandate drug testing has
> only been met by the equally disingenuous "no one has shown that drugs
> can enhance chess performance!"
Worse than that, if you read it carefully: GM Evans
did not phrase it just so that the burden of proof was
(still) on the researchers; to the contrary, he phrased
it as a flat denial of reality. (Some people think the
five-time U.S. champ now lives in Reno, but the fact
is, he's somewhere out in La-la land.)
I have seen quite a few studies conducted by the
U.S. military referenced online, but one site wanted
money just to look at them, unless you had a login
ID. Typically, comments regarding this sort of thing
are reserved for the enemy, though it is widely known
that we too utilize such methods, and have for a long
time.
> I would bet that there are substances
> that can enhance chess performance , which will be shown as sure as it
> is important (no Olympics, no money in chess, no one cares).
>
> There is also the "nervous grandma" view that cannabis, and so on must
> also be tested for to show "purity" in the game. Wasn't one of "Dr."
> Press' arguments that drug testing was "for the children"? Drivel on
> one side, drivel on the other, just a bunch of spoiled children
> arguing over a ball.
As of yet, I have not run into any players whose use
of drugs was an issue. But there is no denying that
some of the descriptions I have heard of the experiences
of others lean toward use of amphetamines or perhaps
even cocaine in chess tournaments by a relative few.
This issue is tough to separate from the idea of bashing
of FIDE, which is hard to sever from getting chess into
the Olympics; apparently, the Evans ratpack are
vehemently against all three, so they mix and match
here on a whim. But in spite of claims which seem to
always be self-contradictory, in the end LP will admit
somewhere -- even if by accident -- that behind it all is
the free money that comes with Olympic participation.
-- help bot
Chess One
> On Nov 7, 7:19 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials
>> >> >> instead of on durg testing?
>>
>> >> > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money.
>>
>> >> whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting
>> >> offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually
>> >> spend
>> >> money on chess events
>>
>> > Nice, um, dodge.
>>
>> > Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse
>>
>> Kennedy. I already replied. When I ask you, you duck. That's okay, but
>> its
>> also /tilt/ and game over.
>>
>> What I answered is that those who care will pay.
>
> Nice switcharoo. You duck, then dodge, then
> proclaim that you "already answered" the direct
> question.
I'm sorry. If you don't care enough to play, its game over.
Its not any dodge since I answered twice - even the same way. Whatever else
occurs to you is not therefore any concern of mine with this subject.
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
> There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of
> testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased
> testosterone levels.
>
Pardon me for injecting a curious hypothetical tangent. What if one of
our 2700+ males decided to cross the gender gap. After getting the
appropriate medical counseling, treatments and surgery he became
recognized by everyday folks as a woman. How much "maleness" would
remain? Would there still be elevated testosterone levels relative to
biological females?
Suppose this person then decided to train, and attempt to qualify for
the women's world championship. Are there FIDE regulations governing
any of this? If we are going to have drug testing, do we also need
gender testing?
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
SBD
> On Nov 7, 10:51 am, SBD <DrD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of
> > testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased
> > testosterone levels.
>
> Can you tell us more about that study?
I'll look. It's been several years since I looked at it, so I would be
hesitant to provide any more details until then. I do know that an
abstract was posted at Dr. Dave's site some years back.
SBD
It's not a bad hypothetical question, Rev. Stella Walsh in chess? :)
SBD
TI: TESTOSTERONE AND CHESS COMPETITION
AU: MAZUR_A, BOOTH_A, DABBS_JM
NA: SYRACUSE UNIV,MAXWELL SCH,SYRACUSE,NY,13244
PENN STATE UNIV,SOCIOL,UNIV PK,PA,16802
GEORGIA STATE UNIV,PSYCHOL,ATLANTA,GA,30303
JN: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY 1992 Vol.55 No.1 pp.70-77
AB: The hormone testosterone (T) has a central role in recent
theories about allocation of status ranks during face-to-
face
competition. It has been methodologically convenient to test
the
hypothesized T mechanism in physically taxing athletic
contests,
where results have been supportive, although their
generalizability to normal social competition is
questionable.
Competition among chess players is a step closer to normal
social
competition because it does not require physical struggle,
and it
is the arena for tests of the T mechanism which are
reported
here. We find that winners of chess tournaments show higher
T
levels than do losers. Also, in certain circumstances,
competitors show rises in T before their games, as if in
preparation for the contests. These results generally
support
recent theories about the role of T in the allocation of
status
ranks.
KP: HUMAN MALES, AGGRESSIVE-BEHAVIOR, SALIVARY TESTOSTERONE,
PLASMA TESTOSTERONE, SERUM TESTOSTERONE, RESPONSES, CORTISOL
Taylor Kingston
> testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased
> testosterone levels.
The way that is phrased, it's not clear whether testosterone
contributes to victory, or winning simply increases one's testosterone
level. Could it not be that the elation of victory increases it, while
the depression of defeat lowers it? Also, did the study control for
age?
J.D. Walker
the contests."
If FIDE regulators catch wind of this and start to imagine scenarios
where unscrupulous chess coaches begin injecting testosterone into young
female players to give them a performance boost before the upcoming
elementary school championship they will probably get pretty excited
about it. If my dim memory of human biology serves, extra testosterone
is not a good thing for females in general, unless it is part of a
medical therapy under the supervision of a doctor. So does this then
lead to considerations similar to those about steroids?
If testosterone is recognized as a problem, it opens up a new
controversy regarding all the different medical treatments involving
hormone supplements. How are you going to test this fairly? If someone
needs a particular supplement (or drug for that matter) to stay alive,
barring them from playing because they test positive for using it is
similar to barring the handicapped from playing... Once you get to that
point, be prepared for more lawsuits.
parrt...@cs.com
>Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. Especially in view of the fact that the hope of
official Olympic recognition seems to have collapsed.> -- Larry
Tapper
Exercise can likely enhance chess performance.
A good breakfast which is calibrated correctly for
mental activity will likely help you more than three
stacks of pancakes, maple syrup and whatever else.
Or perhaps this breakfast is just what the chess
doctor ordered for round one or two.
Perhaps cigarettes or caffeine help out.
Perhaps Evian water with its therapeutic properties
will get the body motions in the right cycle for
better chess than sans Evian. And if the latter were
the case, do we ban expensive Evian and mandate
tapwater for everyone so that the African natives
among us are not disadvantaged when facing a rich
Frenchie from the Alpine regions of Europe?
In the entire history of chess not a single
complaint has been made that a drug helped anyone
win a game of chess. There is no problem.
Yet there is the bureaucratic "solution" of
drug-testing, though to be sure, its raison d'etre of
Olympic admission is a dead letter. As GM Artur
Yusupov and others have noted, its real purpose is to
hold GMs ultimately at risk if they dissent.
One recollects the initial rules for drug
testing which permitted effective political banning of
players and enormous fines. After a brouhaha, in
which GM Evans and this writer participated, many of
the worst excesses (including the possibility of
unlimited doctor's bills for tests involving virtually
everything under the sun) were eliminated or, more
accurately, thrust into the background.
Right now, drug-testing is a political weapon
the FIDE authorities want to wield for political reasons.
But they remain fearful -- thank heaven! -- to do so.
Yours, Larry Parr
Vance
example of you not knowing what you are talking about. If you would
care to dispute this statement, feel free. You know the results.
Vance
On Nov 6, 3:52 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled
> >anyone to win a single game of chess.
>
> Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
help bot
> SBD wrote:
> > There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of
> > testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased
> > testosterone levels.
>
> Pardon me for injecting a curious hypothetical tangent. What if one of
> our 2700+ males decided to cross the gender gap. After getting the
> appropriate medical counseling, treatments and surgery he became
> recognized by everyday folks as a woman. How much "maleness" would
> remain? Would there still be elevated testosterone levels relative to
> biological females?
>
> Suppose this person then decided to train, and attempt to qualify for
> the women's world championship. Are there FIDE regulations governing
> any of this? If we are going to have drug testing, do we also need
> gender testing?
I expect this would be a very unwise move: Judit Polgar
would trash any male player on equal terms, were his
inherent competitive advantages to suddenly disappear.
Don't forget that even with his hairy testosterone-laden
body, Gary Kasparov felt a need to cheat in order to
defeat that girl.
-- help bot
help bot
> Exercise can likely enhance chess performance.
An understatement.
> A good breakfast which is calibrated correctly for
> mental activity will likely help you more than three
> stacks of pancakes, maple syrup and whatever else.
> Or perhaps this breakfast is just what the chess
> doctor ordered for round one or two.
When I ran competitively, coaches would advise runners
to eat spaghetti the night before an event.
In a typical 2-day 5-round Swiss, the stronger players
can expect their easiest games in rounds one and two,
so a good breakfast is probably helpful.
> Perhaps cigarettes or caffeine help out.
No. Cigarettes contain nicotine -- a vasoconstrictor.
It may calm the jitters, but in the end, such drugs as
nicotine are counterproductive.
> Perhaps Evian water with its therapeutic properties
> will get the body motions in the right cycle for
> better chess than sans Evian. And if the latter were
> the case, do we ban expensive Evian and mandate
> tapwater for everyone so that the African natives
> among us are not disadvantaged when facing a rich
> Frenchie from the Alpine regions of Europe?
Gone fishing again? Where do you find all these
herrings -- the North Atlantic?
> In the entire history of chess not a single
> complaint has been made that a drug helped anyone
> win a game of chess.
Name your source. (We could all assume it must be
God; who else knows /everything/ that's ever happened?)
> There is no problem.
Much has been written about this. Complaints seem
to surface whenever an outcome is not to the whiners'
liking, such as when a certain world champion was
not defeated by GMs Kortchnoi or Kasparov. I see
the problem as too much whining, but others could
interpret it as an unfair edge for drug-laced yogurt
eaters -- even if now the whining about it has stopped
for a moment in favor of the "no problem" mantra.
> Yet there is the bureaucratic "solution" of
> drug-testing, though to be sure, its raison d'etre of
> Olympic admission is a dead letter. As GM Artur
> Yusupov and others have noted, its real purpose is to
> hold GMs ultimately at risk if they dissent.
If that were true, then a simple solution would be to
exempt all GMs from testing. LOL
Just let everyone know that GMs can have all the
drugs they want, so they are on equal terms with
one another. The rest of us will be held to a higher
standard, because FIDE has no need to control
critics who do not possess the GM title. Weaker
players can talk their heads off, and it won't bother
FIDE one bit. Of course, in games between GMs
and non-GMs, odds will become necessary in
order to level the field a bit; IMs get a pawn; FMs,
two pawns, and the rest of us, a Knight. I like it!
> One recollects the initial rules for drug
> testing which permitted effective political banning of
> players and enormous fines. After a brouhaha, in
> which GM Evans and this writer participated, many of
> the worst excesses (including the possibility of
> unlimited doctor's bills for tests involving virtually
> everything under the sun) were eliminated or, more
> accurately, thrust into the background.
It sounds like what you need is real clout. It reminds
me a bit of Sam Sloan and his one-vote efforts within
the USCF.
> Right now, drug-testing is a political weapon
> the FIDE authorities want to wield for political reasons.
> But they remain fearful -- thank heaven! -- to do so.
Ad hominem.
The concept of drug-testing stands or falls on its own
merits, regardless of what position the evil minions at
FIDE take. Even the fact that the evil Evans ratpack is
strongly against it, is no valid reason to be in favor. In
fact, these evils seem to essentially cancel one another
out.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
>In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov
match which was halted by Campomanes, I heard
Alburt give a public lecture in which he insisted that
Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of
performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story
here, according to Alburt, was that making a long
series of draws was a brilliant strategy on Kasparov's
part, on the theory that Karpov would eventually collapse
from partially drug-induced exhaustion.> -- Larry Tapper
Lev Alburt's observations about Karpov being
whizzed out on drugs were NOT written AFTER the
event. They were expounded BEFOREHAND.
Alburt was actually predicting a Kasparov
victory when the score stood 5-0 in Karpov's
favor, directly following game 27, which was in some
ways Kasparov's low point.
I published his article in Chess Life believing his
reasoning was basically sound, but there are always
chance blunders. After all, Karpov needed ONLY ONE
more win (six) to clinch the title.
Lev went out on a long limb and wrote the unthinkable
BEFORE it happened. Later on, some of the pro-Sovietish
readers (yes, remember the politics of that time) were
actually angry that Alburt was proved correct.
Campomanes then stopped the match.
Karpov lost 22 pounds, and Campo gave as his
official excuse that both players were at the end of
their rope, though such was evidently not the case for
Kasparov'. If Karpov took drugs, there is no evidence
that they aided him. Quite the opposite.
Once again, Alburt was stating that Karpov was
the player in trouble -- not Kasparov! -- when the score
stood against the latter by 0-5 with 22 draws.
Yours, Larry Parr
marcusw...@hughes.net
Then Lev Albert must be speaking from personal experience, not
his experience as a GM. Most drugs wear off rather quickly. For
this to go on as Abrupt predicted, it would have to been something
like speed or meth. US air force fighter pilots use speed or
amphetamine for
proven use in performance enhancing situations where they must stay
awake for
48-72 hours. Speed helps people remain alert longer than normal, and
that is a proven benefit,
Except that Chess does not require 72 hour matches. The games are now
played quite
Quickly.
So, in an all night chess match, speed does help. Where games are
resticted to 8 or 12 hours
per day, no benefit exists from any drug known to man at this time.
I am amazed, because at the time, there was no internet, no
e-mail to gather gossip.
Sincerely
Marcus Roberts
help bot
> > In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov
> > match which was halted by Campomanes, I heard
> > Alburt give a public lecture in which he insisted that
> > Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of
> > performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story
> > here, according to Alburt, was that making a long
> > series of draws was a brilliant strategy on Kasparov's
> > part, on the theory that Karpov would eventually collapse
> > from partially drug-induced exhaustion.> -- Larry Tapper
>
> Lev Alburt's observations about Karpov being
> whizzed out on drugs were NOT written AFTER the
> event. They were expounded BEFOREHAND.
The report at top insists by its use of the words "had been"
that this was an observation, not a prediction. As he was
talking about a lecture, the above comments miss the
point; LP talks about what was /written/, while at top we
read about something that was /said/. Two different things.
An interesting question is did LA see the drug affects
with his own eyes, or was this a long-distance observation?
What drugs might GK's doctors have provided /him/?
Another interesting question is: how could Larry Evans
have so easily "forgotten" about this when he wrote that
nobody had ever had any problem with drug-use in chess?
(Senility is the obvious answer, but maybe I am giving him
far too much credit.)
> Alburt was actually predicting a Kasparov
> victory when the score stood 5-0 in Karpov's
> favor, directly following game 27, which was in some
> ways Kasparov's low point.
LP ought to explain in what ways he means.
Making it to game 27 in itself was remarkable.
>From the perspective of his prior matches, a low
point would be his first loss, and then his second,
etc. From a later perspective, achieving a draw
could be seen as a high point; but the tip-top
had to be when Mr. Campomanes threw out AK's
decisive lead, declaring the match over, a mere
draw. This meant that GK had never lost a world
championship match, which put him one-up on
many of the former world champs.
Later on, GK would moan and groan about being
"cheated" of an age record by that action, but in
truth such a victory -- were he lucky -- would have
been widely seen as tainted. I don't know about
you, but I would rather surrender a possible age
record (which never stands long, as history shows)
in favor of a title which earns the respect and
admiration of everyone for having been well-earned.
> I published his article in Chess Life
Along with other articles, which took different positions.
Does LP really think he can claim foresight by pretending
this was the only article he published? Wow. I think a
little research will show that most of the articles LP
published predicted an AK victory, so we can infer that
this was no endorsement by the editor.
> believing his reasoning was basically sound, but there are always
> chance blunders. After all, Karpov needed ONLY ONE
> more win (six) to clinch the title.
>
> Lev went out on a long limb and wrote the unthinkable
> BEFORE it happened.
I think LP is shortchanging Gary Kasparov here;
it is hardly "unthinkable" that he might begin to
win some games, instead of just drawing. The
momentum AK had at the beginning was already
gone. The quality of play was declining due to
fatigue.
> Later on, some of the pro-Sovietish
> readers (yes, remember the politics of that time) were
> actually angry that Alburt was proved correct.
He was? Gary Kasparov won the first match?
There were no later K vs. K matches, because
GM Kasparov faced GM Timman or GM Ivanchuk
for the next ten years? I didn't know that. (I won't
bother to ask who won, since it is self-evident.)
> Campomanes then stopped the match.
>
> Karpov lost 22 pounds, and Campo gave as his
> official excuse that both players were at the end of
> their rope, though such was evidently not the case for
> Kasparov'. If Karpov took drugs, there is no evidence
> that they aided him. Quite the opposite.
Nonsense. If GM Karpov was taking the right kinds
and doses of drugs, this explains why GK had so
much trouble with /him/, when he had little trouble with
all the other top players. The match format can be
blamed for any failure due to long-term use burnout.
By the way, if LP's number above is correct, I must
say that 22 pounds is not a huge amount unless AK
was already slimmed down at the start of the match.
Gary Kasparov reportedly also lost weight, but of
course this fact was deliberately omitted by Mr. Parr
in his usual fashion.
> Once again, Alburt was stating that Karpov was
> the player in trouble -- not Kasparov! -- when the score
> stood against the latter by 0-5 with 22 draws.
According to the statement by Larry Tapper at top,
GM Alburt was *wrong*; GM Karpov did not collapse.
What's more, it required a bit of rescuing by the FIDE
president to magically transform GK's negative score
into a drawn match -- something nobody had even
considered possible.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
GM Evans Interviews GM Yuri Averbakh
EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?
AVERBAKH: For me it's completely clear. Because Karpov couldn't
continue at all.
EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?
AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
couldn't play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.
help bot
> EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?
>
> AVERBAKH: For me it's completely clear. Because Karpov couldn't
> continue at all.
>
> EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?
Objection! Your honor, Prosecution is *leading the
witness*.
If we want to know what Larry Evans thinks, we
should have him trade places and take the stand
himself. Mr. Parr can act as prosecutor, and Mr.
Averbakh can write more of his excellent chess
books instead of undergoing this freaky torture.
> AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
> his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
> couldn't play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.
...which he never got.
This fiasco was just another example of FIDE
screwing up the world championship cycle in its
inimitable style. The adoption of a match format
which made no provision whatever for the possibility
of endless draws reveals the shallowness of
thinking which prevails in chess politics.
While the Evans ratpack will rehash two or three
opinions which meld with their own inherent biases,
it should be noted that many other players felt that
in spite of everything, the odds remained in GM
Karpov's favor, since both players were on the ropes
and AK needed to land but a single blow before
crashing to the ground himself from exhaustion.
It often happens that ratpacker Larry Parr will not
discuss an issue, for fear of inconvenient truths
surfacing. Instead, as we see above, he prefers to
focus on what someone /thinks/ may have been
the case. But does it really matter what YA /thinks/
may have stopped the match, or do we want to
know what /really/ stopped the match? If the latter,
then the focus should be upon facts.
One such fact is that the organizers had contacted
the FIDE President, pleading for him to stop the
match, not on AK's behalf, but because it was
costing /them/ as the two players kept drawing
games. Of course, this also was an embarrassment
to FIDE, revealing gross incompetence in planning
the match.
Consider these possibilities:
1) AK enters hospital, GK wins by default (boo!)
2) GK is gaining fast, but loses the match on a single blunder;
blames loss on flawed match format
3) AK drops dead; GK is the new uncontested champion
but regarded as somewhat weaker than his deceased
predecessor
4) AK survives to lose, then enters hospital; blames loss
on match format flaw
5) FC intervenes; stops match, declaring AK winner (boo!)
6) FC intervenes; stops match, declaring a new one be
played in its stead (gawd -- not another one!)
7) FC intervenes; stops match, declares GK winner
because he "looked to be gaining" at the finish (FC is
fired, later becomes checkers champion of Philippines,
and pens book titled: How I Destroyed World Chess)
-- help bot
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>>anyone to win a single game of chess.
>>
>> Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge.
>
> John Fernandez was probably the biggest promoter of drug testing in the
> USA. He admitted in these newsgroups he took Ritalin to calm himself down.
>
> The issue is always if such things provide an /unfair/ edge. Personally,
> whether uppers or downers, I would be quite happy to play anyone drugged
> up to the eyeballs.
I envision baseball in the future being run by the drug companies, with the
players used as guinea pigs, and their stats used to further drug research.
Then everything would be above-board, and the games would serve a useful
purpose to society.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
marcusw...@hughes.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
> One recollects the initial rules for drug
> testing which permitted effective political banning of
> players and enormous fines.
The entire nation of St Kitts and Nevis has been banned for all world
chess play, because on of their
citizens (me) opposes drug testing. I am threatened with murder, I am
harassed, and these threats
are due to, in part, my FIDE governments stance on drug testing.
I am not allowed to attend FIDE events, even under my U.S. Passport. I
am banned from Singaproe,
under my St Kitts and Nevis passport, as a citizen of the British
Commonwealth.
Who wants to hear the gripes of a multimillionare? Who would beleive
this? I find it hard to beleive, and
it has happened to me.
Marcus Roberts
Chess One
major sport - Golf. The opinion of the golfing community seems to be the
same as the chess one - in fact, an AP journalist put it like this:
Test Tiger Woods - if no drugs, then test no further, since if he can do
/that/ without drugs... Bingo!
Phil Innes
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:sdOdnW7-pLqmANja...@pghconnect.com...
parrt...@cs.com
FIDE REPORT by Fide Vice President, Bill Kelleher
November 20, 2007
Following are the decisions taken at the 78th FIDE Congress Executive
Board meeting (Antalya, Turkey, November 11-16.)
Anti-Doping: In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency)
regulations, FIDE will introduce "out of competition" testing in 2008.
This decision has the potential to be extremely controversial.
Fortunately the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men
players and the 5 top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85
players will be tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front
of me, but I think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated
high enough to be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns
about testing in the past so hopefully none of our players will be
tested.
Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89)
Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United
States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for
those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention
on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely
reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom
Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial
blackmail of unruly players.
But FIDE's antidoping regulations grant the FIDE Medical Commission
the power to test every single player at the U.S. Open, if it so
decides. Section of paragraph 1.1 is a blank check.
Read it:
"The procedures which follow are those applicable to FIDE
Competitions," 1.1 begins. But, "In other [unspecified, undefined]
competitions, as well as in out-of-competition
testing [a knock on your door at home], if the FIDE Medical Commission
shall determine that out-of competition testing shall be introduced,
the same procedures [more about the procedures in a moment] shall
apply." Moreover, the Commission need not provide any reason for
demanding testing at, say, the U. S. Open. "The FIDE Medical
Commission," states 1.5, "shall have the right to request, without
justifying the reason therefore, that any competitor undergo a doping
control at any time during the relevant competition." Further,
"without justifying the reason," the Commission may require blood and
urine tests "on more than one occasion during the competition (1.6)."
An unfavored grandmaster may be tested at ruinous expense on multiple
occasions, including having blood drawn repeatedly during a tournament
if the Commission, "without justifying the reason therefore," so
decides.
Taylor Kingston
> OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED
>
>
> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United
> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for
> those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention
> on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely
> reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom
> Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial
> blackmail of unruly players.
Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had
never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive
drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has
been done already? Just asking, not arguing.
Mike Murray
Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it
was most a bullying tactic.
BTW, Kelleher's report seems a wee bit spineless:
"In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations,
FIDE will introduce “out of competition” testing in 2008. This
decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately
the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5
top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be
tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I
think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to
be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in
the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested.".
But "fortunately", since FIDE is "sensitive" we "hopefully" will have
no problem. Heh, heh, heh.
johnny_t
>
> Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had
> never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive
> drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has
> been done already? Just asking, not arguing.
There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de
France.
There have been cases of drug use... And those have been marketed to
prove that the entire program is good.
There have also been some dodgy cases which have been counter marketed
that the entire program is bad.
And now with Barry Bonds and Marion Jone's case
<http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43813>
it would appear that the world will begin demanding more, not less drug
testing of its "heroes", regardless of the field. Which also means that
there will be an increase of cost, privacy invasion, and the ever
present spector of character assassination.
And in chess where there is yet to be shown any drug use that is
decisive, and worse to participate in an event that doesn't accept
chess. All to feed a very expensive organization, more expensive than
the players themselves, to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:997df7d8-d569-479f...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Garry K showed up for a /secret/' meeting in London with Tarasov, a previous
fixer for Gorbachev, and also present was the money interest. It was
immediately clear that Kasparov would have nothing to do with Tarasov's
ideas, not would any corpus of grandmasters, and the money left the meeting
[1999] at the same time as Kasparov stood up.
These are business angles on chess, not chessic ones. The 'money' was right
to walk. Search in vain for any public reference to this encounter, since
like all Fide business, it is conducted in deep secrecy.
Phil Innes
Chess One
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:cpvlk35ka6htm2v8p...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:24:27 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
> <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>>> OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED
>>>
>>> Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89)
>>>
>>> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United
>>> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for
>>> those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention
>>> on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely
>>> reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom
>>> Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial
>>> blackmail of unruly players.
>>
>> Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had
>>never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive
>>drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has
>>been done already? Just asking, not arguing.
>
> Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it
> was most a bullying tactic.
two persons
> BTW, Kelleher's report seems a wee bit spineless:
Bill Kelleher is as you say, not living nor dead - despite the rift between
USCF and Fide - and USCF's own motion to fight drug testing, here you have
the anodyne reporting of someone, as if he did not represent USA
> "In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations,
> FIDE will introduce "out of competition" testing in 2008. This
> decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately
> the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5
> top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be
> tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I
> think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to
> be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in
> the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested.".
>
> But "fortunately", since FIDE is "sensitive" we "hopefully" will have
> no problem. Heh, heh, heh.
Fide is fucking terrified that if they push this issue, USA will baulk at
further affiliation with them. In England it is a more exacerbated situation
still, in the matter of Nigel Short, who the ECF back completely.
If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too
have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the
Western democracies.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>
>"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>news:cpvlk35ka6htm2v8p...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:24:27 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
>> <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>>>> OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED
>>>>
>>>> Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89)
>>>>
>>>> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United
>>>> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for
>>>> those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention
>>>> on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely
>>>> reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom
>>>> Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial
>>>> blackmail of unruly players.
>>>
>>> Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had
>>>never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive
>>>drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has
>>>been done already? Just asking, not arguing.
>>
>> Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it
>> was most a bullying tactic.
>
>two persons
What were they taking? (I might want to try it)
>> BTW, Kelleher's report seems a wee bit spineless:
>
>Bill Kelleher is as you say, not living nor dead - despite the rift between
>USCF and Fide - and USCF's own motion to fight drug testing, here you have
>the anodyne reporting of someone, as if he did not represent USA
>
>> "In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations,
>> FIDE will introduce "out of competition" testing in 2008. This
>> decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately
>> the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5
>> top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be
>> tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I
>> think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to
>> be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in
>> the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested.".
>>
>> But "fortunately", since FIDE is "sensitive" we "hopefully" will have
>> no problem. Heh, heh, heh.
>
>Fide is fucking terrified that if they push this issue, USA will baulk at
>further affiliation with them. In England it is a more exacerbated situation
>still, in the matter of Nigel Short, who the ECF back completely.
>
>If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too
>have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the
>Western democracies.
>
>Phil Innes
>
Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil.
parrt...@cs.com
>Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had never occurred
to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive drug test with
a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has been done
already? Just asking, not arguing.> -- Taylor Kingston
Strange that friend Kingston has not heard
the argument cited from THIS CRAZY WORLD
OF CHESS. It is a very close relative to the one
offered by GM Artur Yusupov for his opposition to
drug testing. There is nothing a lawless outfit led
by a thug like Ilyumzhinov won't do.
As the rules are written, it would not require
faking a drug test result to destroy a career.
There are avenues for FIDE to raise the bar on
unwanted players so that medical bills make it
impractical to continue. The listing of possible
tests by Stephen Press made it clear that thousands
of dollars in medical bills can, in effect, be levied on
players if the authorities so desire.
Have tests yet been faked? It's the same kind
of question that was asked when GM Evans and this
writer predicted that out-of-competition testing was
sure to come. We were told it couldn't happen here.
America's FIDE hack Bill Kelleher, a lowball if
ever there was one, tells us that this testing is only
meant for a few players. Hah!
If you want to understand what is coming in due time,
just look at bicycle racing and other such sports. FIDE
authorities hate the independence of chess players, and they
intend to crack down hard when the time is ripe.
But as GM Evans and I noted many times, the
crackdown is a process, not an enactment. It has and
will continue to take time. The goal is full compliance
with WADA regs inside the chess community.
Did anyone note the impossibly weak hope ofr
Bill Kelleher that Americans won't be required to submit
to drug testing at any time, any place, for any reason
or, for that matter, no reason at all? Alas, we have
a FIDE representative in America instead of an American
representative in FIDE.
From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Evans (page 112)
Chess players are artists whose careers should not be left
to the whims of bureaucrats, who live to control rather than to
create....FIDE was created to unify people, not separate them.
The FIDE of today is a ghastly perversion of its original ideal to
show the world that chess is a universal tongue that can travel
without passport across all borders.
FIDE politicians care more about power games than chess
games. But now their dirty little secret is out, and people are
beginning to wonder why we need all those huge international
congresses where FIDE hotshots attend lavish cocktail parties
in fancy hotel suites, like worms in the bacon, while real players
struggle so hard. People might wonder why we need anything
more than a chess board and a chess set.
Yours, Larry Parr
The Historian
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had
> > never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive
> > drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has
> > been done already? Just asking, not arguing.
>
> There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de
> France.
>
> There have been cases of drug use... And those have been marketed to
> prove that the entire program is good.
>
> There have also been some dodgy cases which have been counter marketed
> that the entire program is bad.
The Floyd Landis fiasco is a good example of an athlete being
sacrificed to protect corrupt sport-bureaucrats.
> And now with Barry Bonds and Marion Jone's case
> <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4...>
The Historian
It doesn't even need to be FIDE. A local politico could doctor the
sample. FIDE would merely need to endorse the result. Perhaps they
will use the same French lab that tested Floyd Landis' urine and found
a drug that cyclists don't use?
Mike Murray
>FIDE politicians care more about power games than chess
>games. But now their dirty little secret is out, and people are
>beginning to wonder why we need all those huge international
>congresses where FIDE hotshots attend lavish cocktail parties
>in fancy hotel suites, like worms in the bacon,
Don't forget the occasional Rolex.
help bot
> If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too
> have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the
> Western democracies.
Riiiight: Americans need England to lead them, not
the other way 'round. LOL
Face it: Tony Blair towed a cow behind him, and it
belonged to the George Bush ranch. All these two
fishermen ever managed to catch was seaweed/flak
for their troubles.
Another problem is that, as crack investigative
reporter(?!!) Sam Sloan has pointed out, the USCF
is hardly a democracy; more like it is ruled by the
few, and always has been. Names like Goichberg
resurface again and again in complaints that a
single vote by an outsider has no impact, no real
meaning. Apparently, both SS and Lev Alburt got
precisely the same impression, at very different
times, while on the board. In short, being a
"democracy" is of no account; what matters is
the position taken by those few in control, the
Goichbergs, the Bushs and Blairs.
But don't get your panties in a wad; drug-testing
will not go over well in the USA, since it could
reduce tournament participation significantly; that
in turn would hit the powers-that-be right where it
hurts most: in the pocketbook. (The name Bill
Goichberg leaps quickly to mind.)
-- help bot
help bot
> >> Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it
> >> was most a bullying tactic.
>
> >two persons
>
> What were they taking? (I might want to try it)
Focus Factor, plus eating fish twice a week and
getting plenty of B-vitamins. One player gained
a hundred points a month on a strict diet of spinach
and seaweed, but soon died when he unwittingly
ingested a baby giant squid, which decisively
counterattacked in the center.
-- help bot
Chess One
"johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:01964de7$0$19195$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
>>
>> Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had
>> never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive
>> drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has
>> been done already? Just asking, not arguing.
<...>
> it would appear that the world will begin demanding more, not less drug
> testing of its "heroes", regardless of the field. Which also means that
> there will be an increase of cost, privacy invasion, and the ever present
> spector of character assassination.
>
> And in chess where there is yet to be shown any drug use that is decisive,
> and worse to participate in an event that doesn't accept chess. All to
> feed a very expensive organization, more expensive than the players
> themselves, to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.
An AP sports writer hit the subject of drug testing in Golf square on the
head when he suggested that Tiger Woods alone be tested. If Tiger comes out
clean, and he can do what he does without drugs... end of story! Phil Innes
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:d81fe5c4-a042-49dc...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>A SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM (Cont'd)
> Did anyone note the impossibly weak hope ofr
> Bill Kelleher that Americans won't be required to submit
> to drug testing at any time, any place, for any reason
> or, for that matter, no reason at all? Alas, we have
> a FIDE representative in America instead of an American
> representative in FIDE.
Well yes! The outstanding omission made loudest noise. Why does USCF
continuously appoint pro-drug testers to represent its anti-drug testing
wishes? Of course this can only be a rhetorical question, since our
'representative' in Fide is not available to be questioned about his
representation.
A previous drug-testing pusher to occupy the post, Jim Eade, told
anti-tester Seirawan to 'fuck off' - so I suppose that is the other
pole-standard of representation and official debate, in contradistinction to
silent treatment.
Recently USCF board plus Bill Hall have declined to answer questions on any
subject relating to their chess management activity - going back on their
pre-election promise - not just to me, but to a panel of questioners who
would 'submit' their questions in advance, in writing, and allow any
reasonable amount of time for response.
Looking back at the pre-election forecasts I note that the current VP
Finance supported being /regularly/ interviewed by a panel, since it seemed
a sensible way to communicate back and forth, and one not dominated by any
singular view of journalist, or USCF official.
Indeed, this would fix the situation where any board member could represent
a minority-view of the board, not mentioning what the majority sense was. An
anti-spin procedure, sensibly adopted elsewhere!
Alas, Randy Bauer declared during the board meeting that what we write here
is so much trash, while the yawning void of contentless conversation
broadcast for all to see at that meeting, is surely indicative that no issue
will be allowed to surface in public during the entirety current
administration.
Even Sam Sloan said that Paul Truong continuously stayed on topic, and tried
to progress a useful issue - and I watched Bill Hall look to the President
to see if he should chuckle more or less, while Randy at the far-end of the
table was content to say what should not be discussed.
zzzzzz
> From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Evans (page 112)
>
> Chess players are artists whose careers should not be left
> to the whims of bureaucrats, who live to control rather than to
> create....FIDE was created to unify people, not separate them.
> The FIDE of today is a ghastly perversion of its original ideal to
> show the world that chess is a universal tongue that can travel
> without passport across all borders.
>
> FIDE politicians care more about power games than chess
> games. But now their dirty little secret is out, and people are
> beginning to wonder why we need all those huge international
> congresses where FIDE hotshots attend lavish cocktail parties
> in fancy hotel suites, like worms in the bacon, while real players
> struggle so hard. People might wonder why we need anything
> more than a chess board and a chess set.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Perhaps I wrote here before what a Russian chess organiser wrote me about
the system there - to paraphrase, 'these people have no skills or talents,
so must content themselves with being "clever".'
Phil Innes
The Historian
> >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too
> >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the
> >Western democracies.
>
> >Phil Innes
>
> Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil.
That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that
my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running
it or get out.
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4960f876-c8f2-4417...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 26, 4:43 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too
>> have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the
>> Western democracies.
>
> Riiiight: Americans need England to lead them, not
> the other way 'round. LOL
Which issue are you addressing:
Chess?
Slavery?
Universal Sufferage?
Confronting Hitler?
You may know that the head of the commonwealth chess association, Nigel
Short, has recently challenged Fide on a number of activities, and some
non-activities [like withdrawing support monies for chess from African
countries where they are most needed] and the ECF have told Fide they cannot
call him before their tribunal since all he said was true!
> Face it: Tony Blair towed a cow behind him, and it
> belonged to the George Bush ranch. All these two
> fishermen ever managed to catch was seaweed/flak
> for their troubles.
Tony Blair is no longer prime minister, and the current one is notably more
independent and taking 'other' action.
> Another problem is that, as crack investigative
> reporter(?!!) Sam Sloan has pointed out, the USCF
> is hardly a democracy; more like it is ruled by the
> few, and always has been. Names like Goichberg
> resurface again and again in complaints that a
> single vote by an outsider has no impact, no real
> meaning. Apparently, both SS and Lev Alburt got
> precisely the same impression, at very different
> times, while on the board. In short, being a
> "democracy" is of no account; what matters is
> the position taken by those few in control, the
> Goichbergs, the Bushs and Blairs.
>
> But don't get your panties in a wad; drug-testing
> will not go over well in the USA, since it could
> reduce tournament participation significantly; that
> in turn would hit the powers-that-be right where it
> hurts most: in the pocketbook. (The name Bill
> Goichberg leaps quickly to mind.)
You are not a perceptive politician. If there is suitable recompense for
/organisers/, then their will be testing.
According to 'representative Kelleher, the USCf would resent any testing on
American soil, AND ALSO, any testing of American citizens elsewhere.
Of course, this is no new stance, and has been in place for years - that
is - the rhetoric of it has. But in the [was it?] penultimate round of the
Olympiad, Polgar was tested.
Her choice was to resent the test and sacrifice the team, or permit it.
USCF made not a peep (to pun) then, nor raised the issue since.
What is necessary at USCF are standards, not personality driven decisions.
Since so many problems are entirely predictable, the very lack of public
debate and standards provide the real answer. Drug testing in the USA will
be decided upon without any real dialog taking place, by people who cannot
be said to be dissinterested parties, and who play real-politik with it -
which is to say, they perform the politics of convenience to themselves.
The trick with politicians always is to ignore what they /say/ they will do,
and concentrate on what they /actually/ do.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
Chess One
"The Historian" <neil.the...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e922d81-f621-425a...@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
John Fernandez used Ritalin. He himself would be banned from competition ;)
Phil Innes
parrt...@cs.com
<Larry Parr's take that drug testing is a "civil liberties" issue is
typically facile. In sports (including cycling) where doping confers
a huge advantage, the very integrity of the sport requires testing.>
-- David Kane
This David Kane is as ugly a beaut' as weve had here.
His attempted defense of bringing drug testing to
the art of chess amounts to this: treat chess players
like weightlifters. If FIDE wishes to destroy the
careers of chess intellectuals who dissent, so be it.
If Grandmaster Yusupov does not bow to a Kane or a
Kirsan, then end his career. That's the nub.
As it happens, I do not argue that drug testing
is a civil liberties issue. It is a social liberties issue.
Civil liberties involve a citizen's relationship
with the State; social liberties are often about the
kind of social behavior that we would restrict.
I argue that FIDE has the right as a private
social organization to require anything it wants of
players and those involved in chess. So, too, we in
chess have a perfect right to withdraw from FIDE and
look elsewhere. We have a right, if possible, to
restrict funding for that organization and for the
USCF if it colludes in this latest outrage of
out-of-competition drug testing.
The issue of drug testing in chess is about the
kind of chess world that we wish to have. Is it to be
a chess world run by prancing bureaucrats, or ought
the chess world to be nearly totally about one thing:
chess and those who play it, write about it and
contribute to the free society of chess players.
We are getting a taste of what it will mean to
live in a society without civil liberties and nearly
any kind of privacy. A high-ranking U.S. intelligence
official has just testified that old-fashioned ideas
of anonymity and privacy will have to go.
In society, there is a similar push to regiment
and to destroy spontaneity. These efforts by private
groups are sometimes supported by government contracts
or outright grants. In the U.S. tax money is not going
toward drug testing, but in other countries it does. In
some countries, drug testing is a civil liberties issue;
in America it is a private social liberties issue.
Some of you will inevitably be on the side of
the David Kane controllers and the bureaucrats. You
like control, fear spontaneity. I hope that a vast
majority of you still have enough belief in the free
life to reject not only government incursions on free
speech or searches without warrants but also will
fight against attempts to control any number of social
activities -- including, in the current instance, this
outrage in our tiny world of chess.
All of the above is beside this fact: no
complaint has ever been lodged, let alone sustained,
that someone won a game because he ingested a drug.
Millions and millions of tournaments games have been
played, and there has never been a drug complaint in
the world of chess.
You know this. The chess bureaucrats know this.
David Kane knows this. But there are those who wish
to gain control over this tiny world of chess, and drug
testing is their solution to a problem that never
existed in tournaments and does not exist now.
Yours, Larry Parr
SBD
Unfortunately, you probably have to be able to manage your own affairs
before trying to manage the affairs of others.
Chess One
"SBD" <DrD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:504cb22a-f005-4bf6...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The subjective measure is left out, and this is very often, Dr. D., the sum
and all of it. Many 'witnesses' are [privately] invested in the result, by
guilt favor or ambition, and these people can have the most clamorous
voices. It is not seemly; not intellectual decent, even, yet where there is
money & other favours in the picture, then the lights go out for the real
deals.
In 1999 Tarasov of Fide Commerce, had a secret meeting with Garry in London.
Garry told him to go to hell, since the personal cost of readmission would
have been to sell the rest of us down the river.
Fortunately the 'money' at the meeting gave more credit to Garry as a
player, than to the organisation, and they too, walked away. Now we have
another face on things, Fide Commerce '2', run by someone who Nigel Short
supported, then... and whose subsequent activity in joining commercial
forces with Fide made people's jaws drop.
In the end we all seem to want the same thing for USCF as for Fide, an open
and transparent governance which we can respect, with objective standards,
not favorites of personalities, and is this so very much to ask in 2007?
Certainly, the 'Money' keeps staying away from the game, since it sniffs
something wrong, O so Wrong-O.
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
Let me throw in a bit of speculation from an unexpected direction.
K Eric Drexler, the "father of nanotechnology," had interesting
predictions that bear on this subject.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Eric_Drexler )
People have guessed that it might take 50 years for nanotechnology to
develop to the point where the following is possible. That was in the
late 1980s.
Dr. Drexler projected that we would at some point have molecular-sized,
self-replicating super-computers. He also projected that we would have
molecular-sized, self-replicating injectable "hospitals."
The chess connection is interesting. How are we going to check to see
if a contestant shot up a few thousand nano-super-computers and
nano-drug-manufacture-plants before a competition?
There is an obvious answer... FIDE will have to inject each contestant
with nano-investigator-regulator-bots before each competition!
--
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
"... what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a
measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results
with His Noodly Appendage."
-- Bobby Henderson opposing Evolution & Intelligent Design
Mike Murray
<j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Greetings friends,
>
>Let me throw in a bit of speculation from an unexpected direction.
>
>K Eric Drexler, the "father of nanotechnology," had interesting
>predictions that bear on this subject.
>( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Eric_Drexler )
>
>People have guessed that it might take 50 years for nanotechnology to
>develop to the point where the following is possible. That was in the
>late 1980s.
>
>Dr. Drexler projected that we would at some point have molecular-sized,
>self-replicating super-computers. He also projected that we would have
>molecular-sized, self-replicating injectable "hospitals."
>
>The chess connection is interesting. How are we going to check to see
>if a contestant shot up a few thousand nano-super-computers and
>nano-drug-manufacture-plants before a competition?
>
>There is an obvious answer... FIDE will have to inject each contestant
>with nano-investigator-regulator-bots before each competition!
At that point, they'll probably be mandatory. Just like laptops in
college. Cyborgs are good. Ask Help Bot.
J.D. Walker
Even if this seems far-fetched, consider the following possibilities
that seem much more realistic. In the comments below the term
'computer' may also be construed to include miniaturized communication
devices.
1) Wearable computers.
2) Insertable computers e.g. suppositories, ear plugs etc
3) Prosthetic computers
4) Implantable computers e.g. pace-maker-like etc.
If these become areas of real concern at chess tournaments, drug testing
will be the least of our problems. There will have to be full strip
searches. Body cavity searches. X-ray examination. Full search of all
clothing and accessories. Examination of all prosthetic appendages.
Cloning and identity theft may also become issues. Who is really
playing? Each player will need a full set of official documentation to
prove who they really are as well as extensive DNA testing results.
Possibly a permanent bar code on the forehead would be wise...
Heh heh. Welcome to the future gang! How would you like this kind of
world Mr. Parr? :^)
--
Cheers,
Mike Murray
<j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Even if this seems far-fetched, consider the following possibilities
>that seem much more realistic. In the comments below the term
>'computer' may also be construed to include miniaturized communication
>devices.
>
>1) Wearable computers.
>2) Insertable computers e.g. suppositories, ear plugs etc
>3) Prosthetic computers
>4) Implantable computers e.g. pace-maker-like etc.
>
>If these become areas of real concern at chess tournaments, drug testing
>will be the least of our problems. There will have to be full strip
>searches. Body cavity searches. X-ray examination. Full search of all
>clothing and accessories. Examination of all prosthetic appendages.
I think these *are* real concerns right now. The cheats that have
been caught have shown a mix of technical cleverness with stupidity.
The guy with the communications device in his ear, for example -- if
he'd had that repackaged with something that looked like a real
hearing aid, he'd have passed.
Aren't large class prizes wonderful?
>Possibly a permanent bar code on the forehead would be wise...
"666", Reverend. Ya got to have it to play.
parrt...@cs.com
WE CAN'T PUT OFF THE BATTLE
<Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding
nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that
there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the
use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the
current state of affairs.) -- David Kane
As I noted, some people will find the arguments
of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing
where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of
control seems like anarchy to them.
The man's latest attempt to defend drug testing
in chess is to argue that it is necessary in sports.
Because weightlifters are tested, so should
chessplayers. If a grandmaster -- an intellectual
such as, say, a Hans Ree -- will not cooperate with
FIDE, then destroy his career. If an Artur Yusupov
will not be tested, then go after him. If a promising
young American GM will not cooperate with
self-humiliation at the order of chess bureaucrats,
then drive him into the dust and get him out of chess.
Many of you will recollect that the first
justification for drug testing offered by Jim Eade and
others like him was that we had to acquiesce so that
our lads would be getting major international
publicity in the Olympic Games.
Go for the Gold -- and all that tripe.
The next justification was that some federations
needed money that would accrue to them if FIDE adopted
drug testing. The amounts involved turned out to be
minuscule. The end result was that we Americans and
others would sacrifice the free traditions of chess
for a mess -- and a very small one at that -- of pottage.
When GM Larry Evans and I predicted that
out-of-competition testing would be the next step in
clamping down, we were attacked by the usual claque of
USCF insiders and FIDE bureaucrats.
Now, the luscious David Kane tells us that,
well, drug testing is for the sake of the kids
and not all that common as yet. Right. He's a
controller -- and how he must hate players and
journalists who prefer the free life.
GM Evans and I have explained from the very
beginning that the imposition of drug testing in the
chess world would be incremental. It would be a
process rather than an enactment. That is exactly
what is now happening.
I have three or four orders of business on these
forums that time shortage has stymied. I want to get
back to Taylor Kingston and the issue of the Laurie letter.
I promised the Rev. Walker several long articles on
Edward Winter and the claque around him. He will be
able to judge for himself, say, the behavior of the
ChessCafe censors. Finally, there is this business of
drug testing, which will have to come first.
I will be posting a drug petition on this site
and sending it out to quite a few people. The USCF
leadership and the Kirsan toady Kelleher cannot be
permitted to get away with de facto support of
out-of-competition testing and, indeed, drug testing
in general.
It is time to form a committee to hit the
Federation politicians with the only weapon we have:
a widely circulated petition to deny them funds from
chessplayers. I am willing to serve on the committee
from afar, and I hope there will be a few volunteers here.
Meanwhile, I will be sending out quite a few private
emails trying to organize a movement to circulate
petitions at tournaments and in USCF affiliated clubs.
We can no longer put off this battle. The
arrogant Kelleher nonsense, which was so contemptuous
of our intelligence and credulity, must be answered
with action.
Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 83)
"FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug
testing will not be able to play chess. At the moment, I would have to
freely admit there are drugs which theoretically COULD affect
cognitive performance, but we have NO real
scientific proof that anything can positively affect cognitive
performance and consequently, chess." -- Dr. Stephen Press, vice-
chairman FIDE Medical Commission
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, shall we? There is no
demonstrable drug problem in chess. There is not even a claimed drug
problem in chess. There is not even, as we shall see, a claim that
there could be a drug problem in chess. There is only a claim that IF
there might someday be a drug that affects cognition, then there could
possibly be a drug problem in chess.
We have a "could" conditioned on an "if." Wow!
Yours, Larry Parr
parrt...@cs.com
SUGGESTED PETITION
Here is a suggested anti-drug testing petition
for circulation to your local chess club. We are
seeking to form a national committee to campaign
against the USCF's de facto support of drug testing at
chess tournaments and in Federation affiliates. You
are asked to pledge not to give the Federation your
money until it takes a series of actions listed in the
petition. Our politicians understand only financial
force majeure. Moral considerations mean little, if
anything to them. They are quite prepared to support
FIDE in destroying the careers of chess pros who
who fail to conform to the orders of bureaucrats.
Yours, Larry Parr
PETITION TO PREVENT DRUG TESTING IN U. S. CHESS
"FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not
accept drug testing will not be able to play chess." -
Dr. Stephen Press, founding vice-chairman of FIDE's
Medical Commission
"Recently FIDE announced its doping regulations in a
truly horrifying document. The humiliations players
will have to suffer are sketched in gory detail.
Exclusion from all events for life and fines up to a
million dollars are threatened. It almost made me
cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred soul,
no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever
contemplate a career as a professional chessplayer." -
Dutch GM Hans Ree
We, the undersigned current and former U. S.
Chess Federation (USCF) members, hereby PLEDGE on our
HONOR either to discontinue or to carefully reconsider
purchasing USCF memberships or books and equipment
until the Federation publicly ceases de facto support
for and publicly rejects all mandatory drug testing in
chess. We intend to take our chess money elsewhere
when possible.
We call on, first, the Executive Board and then
the Board of Delegates to take these steps: 1. Pass
formal motions that there will be no mandatory drug
testing in any USCF-rated tournament; 2. Pass formal
motions rejecting FIDE's drug code AS APPLICABLE TO
THE USCF and stating that the USCF will enforce no
drug code sanctions on any player; and 3. Pass formal
motions to campaign actively in FIDE to cease all
chess drug testing and to abolish its drug code and
medical commission. The Federation must announce in a
letter to the presidents of all FIDE member
federations, which is to be posted at all major
Internet chess sites, that the USCF will disobey all
calls by FIDE for drug testing. For these reasons:
1. Drug testing violates privacy. Our medical files
are no business of chess officials.
2. Drug testing in chess is a "solution" without a
problem. Millions of games have been played without a
single complaint that drugs influenced the outcome.
3. No study exists showing that any of the over 100
banned IOC substances, including too much coffee, can
raise anyone's chess rating.
4. Both the IOC and the USOC have rejected chess as a
sport in the Olympic Games, the stated reason for drug
testing. Yet FIDE's drug code permits testing in all
tournaments, including low-level, non-FIDE Swiss,
speed and scholastic events. FIDE officials can
observe the private parts and functions of young children.
5. Many grandmasters state that FIDE's drug code
attempts to control players via Draconian penalties.
No proof of violation is necessary. Under the code:
"Intentional doping can be proved by any means
whatsoever, including presumption." One may be
"presumed" guilty. No proof needed.
6. For those with medical problems, FIDE states,
"Documentary evidence provided, should include AT A
MINIMUM [emphasis added], records of tests taken,
affidavits from prescribing physicians, consultants'
reports, etc." Heavy medical bills and intrusive drug
testing will kill chess promotion in the United States.
7. FIDE has recently introduced out-of-competition
drug testing in chess, meaning players may be tested
any time, anywhere for any reason or no reason at all.
parrt...@cs.com
<I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem to have about a 6th
grade understanding of drug testing. Though that may be unfair to 6th
graders.>-- David Kane
I take it, then, that David Kane will not be adding his name to my
petition.
Since at the moment only about 80 of the world's top players will be
affected by out-of-competition testing, GM Larry Evans has submitted
the issue to the governing board of Association of Chess
Professionals. What will come of it remains to be seen.
David Kane wrote:
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:f34064bd-bcf6-44e6...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > WE CAN'T PUT OFF THE BATTLE
> >
> >
> > <Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding
> > nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that
> > there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the
> > use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the
> > current state of affairs.) -- David Kane
> >
> > As I noted, some people will find the arguments
> > of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing
> > where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of
> > control seems like anarchy to them.
> >
>
> Hardly. I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem
> to have about a 6th grade understanding of drug testing.
> Though that may be unfair to 6th graders.
help bot
> > > Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding
> > > nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that
> > > there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the
> > > use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the
> > > current state of affairs.) -- David Kane
>
> > > As I noted, some people will find the arguments
> > > of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing
> > > where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of
> > > control seems like anarchy to them.
>
> > Hardly. I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem
> > to have about a 6th grade understanding of drug testing.
> > Though that may be unfair to 6th graders.
If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers
of computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the
greater threat in chess competition, now that computers
have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre
GMs. In the old days, the greatest threat was that a
player would consult with other human chess players
while his games were in progress, but now that would
only seem necessary if consultation with a computer
were difficult or impossible.
By comparison, using drugs is a poor strategy, unless
the alternative is not possible or if there is a greater risk
of getting caught. (Of course, there may be other,
perfectly valid reasons for wanting to use drugs. ;>D )
Perhaps special booths will need to be constructed.
Lead shields can prevent the transmission of radio
waves, and state-of-the-art electronics detectors can
prevent use of hidden devices without the need for a
body-cavity search. Slow-motion cameras will put an
end to any funny-business like that seen when Gary
Kasparov cheated against a girl. Electronics embedded
within the chessboard could eradicate the problem of
illegal-move cheating, and all that remains is to figure
out who will pay for all this equipment... .
In any case, it makes no difference to me; for years,
I have utilized the undetectable blinking-and-winking
system of cheating, in which *coded signals* are
given from across the room by another player. It is
unfortunate that up to now, I have not been able to
recruit a "helper" above the Class D level, as can be
seen in my play -- but one day I hope to move up to
at least Class C or B, so I can compete with the
drug-users and Fritz-in-my-shoe types.
One point is this: in terms of priorities, the drug
problem is likely to be far less critical than the
problem of computer cheating, because of the
titanic difference in strength between John Doe
on drugs, and Fritz, sober as a carrot.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
>If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers of computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the greater threat in chess competition, now that
computers have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre
GMs.> -- help bot
Greg Kennedy dribbles on and on. Please note:
there is no "drug problem" in chess. And, to be sure,
he offers us more of his GM-spleenis envy. When
reading his posting, we again marvel at how he must
be seething. He wanted to be one thing in life, but he
turned out another. Greg can never forgive GMs and
those who are well read.
If GMs are, then, "mediocre," what does that
make our Greg? A woodpusher duffer, a huffer and puffer?
puffer? But we hear not him describing himself in such terms.
As Greg once told us, he coulda been a
contendah if he had just been raised in Brooklyn like
Bobby Fischer.
Ho, ho, ho.
help bot
> OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS
Methinks she doth protest too much.
Forsooth, the minions of LE spy "attacks" everywhere --
even where they ain't.
GM Evans has long been retired from active play, and
besides that, his own games are relatively few and hard
to find. However, the pages of Chess Lies are filled
with games by other GMs, termed mediocre on account
of their revealing serious errors, upon inspection by Fritz.
The harsh fact is that today, a few top programs have
established a moat, a sizable gap betwixt themselves
and the average or mediocre human grandmaster. In fact,
even some GMs who are wont to be boastful of their own
imagined achievements will, as a matter of routine, now
resort to the use of Fritz (or Rybka, or Zap) in their
published annotations (Susan Polgar, for instance).
Not having any chess board which will fit on the
counter top where my laptop computer sits, I find it
handy to play over these annotated games in Chess
Lies magazine on my computer. One big advantage is
that, when the article says a line is no good, I can
quickly verify this (or refute it) by activating Fritz. But
more often, it is errors of omission that are uncovered,
grotesque misstatements along strategical lines which
Fritz has no difficulty in objectively debunking.
Truth be told, I have no games of Larry Evans to
examine with Fritz; the five-time U.S. champ is
nearly unique in having almost no published games,
only diagrammed positions to look over, such as his
amazing escape versus Sammy Reshevsky in a
position "nine out of ten grandmasters would have
resigned immediately". (All I know is his results
were stellar, but unfortunately he was overshadowed
by the untimely appearance of Bobby Fischer, right
in his own back yard.)
Just as when Edward Winter obsesses over a small
spelling error or wrong date carelessly published by
the five-time U.S. champ, Mr. Parr seems to go
berserk at any comment he might somehow be able
to misconstrue as an "attack" on his idol. It's a sad
thing to watch -- the pedant because he is unaware
of his own pettiness, and the paranoid delusional, in
that he thinks he sees scary monsters everywhere.
----
At the lower levels of play, I have later learned of or
personally witnessed countless acts of cheating in
chess; this is why I see the drug issue as relatively
less important. No one I know of has swallowed a
smart pill after learning they are paired against say,
Emory Tate, to equal the odds. Instead, a few
unscrupulous types will more likely try and consult
some "sworn enemy" of the tournament favorite,
which is something of a hit-or-miss affair. The most
likely outcome is a very difficult struggle, in which
ET emerges victorious because the cheater is a
hopeless patzer in a time scramble. LOL
---
Obviously, my qualification of the term grandmaster
was intended to convey the fact that a few world-class
GMs can still hold their own, for instance, as seen in
the famous match where GM Kramnik had outplayed
one of the top programs only to toss his win away,
then allow a mate-in-one. I count that as a fluke, but
the outplaying as indicative of humanity's superior
strategical understanding, flattened by the computer's
superior tactics.
By comparison, the average or mediocre grandmaster
is now losing routinely at pawn odds, and this may
well be widened to two pawn odds if the programmers
can stop handicapping their contraptions via their own
ineptitude. Mark my words: it is only a matter of time
before a HAL9000 style machine can give mediocre
GMs a Knight, utilizing an anti-human style of play
which cleverly avoids simplification, except when
sufficiently advantageous to itself.
A long, long time ago, pundits insisted that programs
would not ever become strong enough to defeat a
human master; that later waffled into "grandmaster",
and it took decades for the process to reach a point
where even that waffle got "cooked". A big part of the
problem was in recognition that even the best players
were only human; that they were far from infallible.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
FIDE GOES BESERK
Although chess is unlikely ever to become an Olympic sport, that
doesn't stop the bureaucrats from imposing their silly regulations.
"FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug
testing will not be able to play chess," wrote Dr. Stephen Press, vice-
chairman of FIDE's medical commission.
"It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred
soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever
contemplate a career as a professional chess player," noted Dutch
grandmaster Hans Ree. "It is hard to say who are more despicable, the
FIDE bosses who invented this horror, the chess federations that saw
it happen but did nothing to prevent it, or those players who will
meekly submit to these senseless humiliations."
"The Olympics are for physical sports, not board games. Their motto is
'Faster, Stronger, Higher.' -- not Cleverer," noted an outraged
amateur. "Certain drugs can significantly improve athletic
performance, while at the same time often harming the athletes who
take them. No such problem has been established in chess, and chess
players are therefore properly suspicious and even resentful when told
they have to be drug tested. I have no sympathy with the people who
claim they are fighting to get chess into the Olympics; and I have
actual animus toward officials who try to impose
controls on chess with the excuse that the Olympics requires drug
testing."
From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 80)
David Kane wrote:
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:0c6c93a3-8749-40dd...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > SIX GRADERS
> >
> > <I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem to have about a 6th
> > grade understanding of drug testing. Though that may be unfair to 6th
> > graders.>-- David Kane
> >
> > I take it, then, that David Kane will not be adding his name to my
> > petition.
> >
> > Since at the moment only about 80 of the world's top players will be
> > affected by out-of-competition testing, GM Larry Evans has submitted
> > the issue to the governing board of Association of Chess
> > Professionals. What will come of it remains to be seen.
>
> I certainly hope they have something better to do than
> pontificate on imaginary problems (drug use, drug testing,
> alien abduction etc.) It would be a welcome surprise if
> they were proactive in dealing with actual threats to
> the game's integrity - e.g. computer cheating. I am
> not optimistic.
help bot
> "It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred
> soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever
> contemplate a career as a professional chess player," noted Dutch
> grandmaster Hans Ree. "It is hard to say who are more despicable, the
> FIDE bosses who invented this horror, the chess federations that saw
> it happen but did nothing to prevent it, or those players who will
> meekly submit to these senseless humiliations."
Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing
is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players?
------
Imagine if you will that a psychotic tournament director
(you may know a few) one day shows up before an event
insisting that all players either join the state chess
association or else they can't play. Now some, like me,
will be well aware of the sordid history of what happens
to membership fees purportedly earmarked for the
publication of a state magazine, while others will have
no idea. In such a case, it makes sense to expect
that I might be upset, /perhaps/ even humiliated by
such an intrusion, but what about others? I can't see
it as anything but irrelevant to them -- until later, when
they discover the truth for themselves, after the fact.
In much the same way, this drug-testing business is
something of an irrelevant bother for those who have no
fear of "detection" of wrongdoing. I don't see where the
purported embarrassment comes in, except for drug
users who fear their illegal activities will be exposed.
As for "young intellectuals" being defined as those
who use illegal drugs, I find that hilarious! The more
so when you consider that the height of such activity
may have occurred (in the USA) during the 1960s,
which would make a lot of these folks a tad older than
"young", and certainly no more intellectual than their
drug-free counterparts.
> "The Olympics are for physical sports, not board games. Their motto is
> 'Faster, Stronger, Higher.' -- not Cleverer," noted an outraged
> amateur.
Why is he outraged? What emotion motivates such
a powerful reaction -- FEAR?
> "Certain drugs can significantly improve athletic
> performance, while at the same time often harming the athletes who
> take them. No such problem has been established in chess
This looks like advocacy for reactive management.
I have a good deal of experience with that sort of
thinking, yet *proactive* is undoubtedly superior.
Granted, in this case both proactive and reactive are
equally useless, since the management in question
is that of FIDE. :>(
> and chess
> players are therefore properly suspicious and even resentful when told
> they have to be drug tested.
Hardly. When I am accused of playing like Fritz,
I take it as a huge compliment; and were I to be
accused of taking smart pills, I would likely have
the very same reaction. Now, someone who might
take strong exception is AK--on blueberry yogurt.
> I have no sympathy with the people who
> claim they are fighting to get chess into the Olympics; and I have
> actual animus toward officials who try to impose
> controls on chess with the excuse that the Olympics requires drug
> testing."
Who cares? One person's irrational emotions are
of no import; nobody cares about one man's feelings
of sympathy or anger toward a chess organization.
Let's try to focus on why it is alleged that the drug
testing itself will promote feelings of "embarrassment"
for all "self-respecting" chess players. I find that hard
to believe; in fact, the pro-drug-use argument seems
flawed in general. Take tobacco, for instance; for a
*very long time* peer pressure and marketing tricks
pushed people to inhale poisonous fumes voluntarily,
yet in the end it became clear who were the real
intellectuals, and who the mere pretenders. And
even if what the ratpack is smoking now is not
quite so destructive, it still is a foreign substance
and along with the desired chemicals there will of
course be burnt paper fumes; try brownies instead.
And stop getting so stressed out over everything;
remember-- chill out; everything's like cool, daddy-o.
You're too cool to get caught.
-- chillin' bot
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:add9900e-3b42-4305...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS
>
>>If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers of computer
>>cheating, the latter seems far and away the greater threat in chess
>>competition, now that
> computers have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre
> GMs.> -- help bot
>
> Greg Kennedy dribbles on and on.
Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two
position that Frtiz couldn't solve. Computers are the idiot-savants of
chess. Years ago Taimanov was charmed by the idea that his Game 3 with
Fischer, and Qh3 !?!, seemed to me to be the most complx position achieved
in chess in the C20th - he didn't disagree, and noted that no supercomputer
solved it.
> Please note:
> there is no "drug problem" in chess.
In fact - I think this should be a banner for chess - the refusal to take
part in drug-infested sports - making the clear counter-claim that chess is
drug free.
Instead of drug testing - I suggest the best safeguard for players is to
test the organisers and the teachers, by ensuring proper standard of
background checking of those who would have anything to do with our kids.
Maybe Larry Evans could also put that proposition to the ACP?
As well as the usual guard against paedophiles which is adopted almost
universally elsewhere, there are also other unsavory behaviors which
administrators have - and really,
Do we have no standards at all?
Why is this man president ? - he is no 'representative' of We the chess
People, indeed, no democrat at all. Yet here is the fons et origo of the
non-problem which aspires to become a big problem by suggesting there /are/
drugs to avoid in chess - by banning and fining players, which is more than
suggestive that actual offenses or unfair behavior /has/ taken place...
that, I put to you, is the Greater salivating Dribble which drips down from
the top; an appetite for power that is never appeased by feeding it.
Phil Innes
parrt...@cs.com
Once again, we simply reprint the entire posting
from Greg Kennedy. Notice how he goes on and on
and on about grandmasters, whom he evidently hates.
Their crime is that they were far better than he is or
will ever be.
.
Yours, Larry Parr
The Historian
> DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS
>
> Once again, we simply reprint the entire posting
> from Greg Kennedy. Notice how he goes on and on
> and on about grandmasters, whom he evidently hates.
> Their crime is that they were far better than he is or
> will ever be.
> .
> Yours, Larry Parr
Thanks, Larry. I had trouble believing what I was seeing the first
time. Does help-bot really believe GM Evans' games are "hard to find?"
help bot
STILL IN THE SIXTH GRADE?
> Once again, we simply reprint the entire posting
> from Greg Kennedy. Notice how he goes on and on
> and on about grandmasters, whom he evidently hates.
> Their crime is that they were far better than he is or
> will ever be.
> .
> Yours, Larry Parr
Once again, the ravings of a madman who seems
/obsessed/ with my person, and who is incapable of
answering reasonable questions. As someone else
observed, the level of understanding is reminiscent
of a sixth grader.
Take a look at this rant, which desperately crafts a silly
straw man for its irrational author to knock over:
-------------------
> OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS
> If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers of
> computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the
> greater threat in chess competition, now that computers
> have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre GMs.
> -- help bot
> Greg Kennedy dribbles on and on. Please note:
> there is no "drug problem" in chess. And, to be sure,
> he offers us more of his GM-spleenis envy. When
> reading his posting, we again marvel at how he must
> be seething. He wanted to be one thing in life, but he
> turned out another. Greg can never forgive GMs and
> those who are well read.
> If GMs are, then, "mediocre," what does that
> make our Greg? A woodpusher duffer, a huffer and puffer?
> puffer? But we hear not him describing himself in such terms.
------------------
Apart from the fact that the author of that rant is clearly
a paranoid delusional who sees scary monsters at every
turn, we have the issue of his irrational fear that GM
Larry Evans is under constant attack -- from what they
both wish to perceive as his "vast inferiors".
No doubt Mr. Parr's own lack of grand-masterly chess
ability has escaped their mutual intellectual grasp, such
that it is; but far more worrisome is the inherent idea
that all grandmasters must be created equal, hence an
imagined attack on one automatically morphs into an
attack on Larry Evans. Nothing could be further from
reality; in fact, there are strong grandmasters, and then
there are weak ones. A few GMs have found that they
can no longer maintain an SM USCF rating, dropping into
the very same range as that which Mr. Parr so deeply
dreads: the 2300+ area which has long been another of
his many irrational obsessions. No matter how weak a
player may eventually become, he keeps the FIDE IGM
title just the same.
The best human grandmasters are still able to cope
with Fritz -- which is not to say they can win a set
match, but rather, they do not feel outclassed until
the inevitable tactical slip-and-fall. The bungles I've
detected in the analysis of average or mediocre GMs
-- primarily in Chess Lies magazine -- have nothing to
do with the analysis or ability of LE, since he only writes
about politics these days. In fact, the closest one may
come to debunking any piece of recent analysis by LE
would be purely on the basis of common sense, pointing
out the many books which are filled with blunders by the
famous masters, to show a fatal flaw in his logic -- not
in his chess.
I could point to one recent error, but again, that would
hardly do justice to the legendary five-time U.S. champ.
He was, after all, making a point, not seriously making
an attempt to "find the best move". It reminds me of the
famous letter from Bobby Fischer, in which LE printed
an offhand comment but then BF wrote in to point out
some subtlety in the position, to avenge a valid criticism
of his actions. Ironically, it is now Larry Evans himself,
along with his drones, who can not seem to stand the
intellectual heat of constructive criticism.
The position I am thinking of is the one where GM Evans
whips off a comment that "nine out of ten grandmasters"
would do such and such, because that's what he would
do without even thinking. But that's just the problem! By
"not thinking" the old lion overlooked subtle possibilities
which are deeply hidden in the woodwork; possibilities
which players like Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer
might very well spot (not to mention Fritz).
It seems that the Evans ratpack wants to argue against
drug-testing, yet every attempt I have yet seen falls flat
on account of their inability to think rationally. It's the
same old story of carefully selecting a few quotes with
which to attack FIDE, but being utterly incapable of
putting together a convincing case; it always ends the
same way, too, with ad hominem being generously doled
out for any who dare point out the gaping holes. Sadly, I
have little doubt that a much better case /could/ be made,
if only the paranoid delusionals and other wannabe-
advocates did not always so clumsily get in the way.
I might even make an attempt myself, just to show
how it can be done, but I have no motivation, not being
an illegal drug user, nor having ever felt "embarrassed"
by the results of a urine test, nor having ever caused
any suspicion on account of superlative chess results.
If anything, organizers and directors might wonder
what performance *hindering* drugs I might be taking.
In one classic case of chess blindness, I overlooked
a mate-in-three which was pointed out to me by a
complete duffer after the game.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
<Thanks, Larry. I had trouble believing what I was seeing the first
time. Does help-bot really believe GM Evans' games are "hard to find?"
-- The Historian
Neil,
It's about on a parr with Greg Kennedy's other claims.
parrt...@cs.com
>Predictably, Parr has yet to explain how
>something like, say, receiving a blood transfusion
>before a bike race is an example of mankind's
>cherished "spontaneity". -- David Kane
Blood testing in chess? Treating great players like
bicyclists or weightlifters. That is David Kane's vision for
the royal game -- a sure way to kill chess promotion.
GM Hans Ree noted that any self-respecting young
intellectual will not stand for the humiliation of
participating in senseless drug testing. His point, which
our Kane could not plumb, is that men of mind take the
search for truth seriously, even in a closed system
such as chess. Caissa may not command the ultimate
infinitudes of the major arts, but its greatest partisans
have always demanded freedom to pursue their star.
True, the demands differed in moral content --
a Botvinnik essentially forcing his compatriots to
give him a second chance in the 1941 Soviet Absolute
Championship; a Bobby Fischer choosing when and with
whom he would play; an Alexander Alekhine analyzing
every position to death, looking and sometimes
discovering unexpected ideas.
Men of mind, as Solzhenitsyn has noted,
inherently resent participating in "the lie."
In the case of drug testing, men of mind are
asked not only to participate in a physical command --
but, still worse, a physical command that all of us
recognize as irrational (there is no drug problem in
chess) and based on power politics.
Such was Ree's point. It is a point that a
controller such as David Kane both resents as effete
intellectuality and hates as an expression of the
ceaseless human striving for freedom and truth.
It would appear that in Greg Kennedy, David Kane
has found a soulmate.
What a soul! What a mate!
Larry Evans' column in magazines and newspapers
are an enormous success for one reason: readers enjoy him
and learn from his experiences. His books are best-sellers,
some even considered classics, in our little world of chess.
We have noted before that in every Chess Life
survey ever conducted, GM Evans scored at or near the
top. For a while, he and Andy Soltis traded places in
the surveys for the gold medal. For deacdes he was
still one of the two key adornments to the magazine, in
the views of thousands of readers who answered surveys.
David Kane hates the above facts. So does our
Greg. They really do.
Mr. Kane also evidently dislikes social freedom.
He can't stand it, in truth. Readers who have gone
through his work here can judge for themselves.
Possibly the most fascinating facet of the battle
over drug testing in chess is how it draws a line
between types of people -- though not quite the same
line that W. S. Gilbert suggested in his rhyme, "Every
little boy and girl alive/Is born a little liberal or
conservative." With a long "i" in "conserative."
Yours, Larry Parr
David Kane wrote:
> "help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:093f1293-53f5-4bc6...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > It seems that the Evans ratpack wants to argue against
> > drug-testing, yet every attempt I have yet seen falls flat
> > on account of their inability to think rationally. It's the
> > same old story of carefully selecting a few quotes with
> > which to attack FIDE, but being utterly incapable of
> > putting together a convincing case; it always ends the
> > same way, too, with ad hominem being generously doled
> > out for any who dare point out the gaping holes. Sadly, I
> > have little doubt that a much better case /could/ be made,
> > if only the paranoid delusionals and other wannabe-
> > advocates did not always so clumsily get in the way.
>
> This is correct. To reject Parr's juvenile
> arguments is not to favor needless drug testing.
> Predictably, Parr has yet to explain how
> something like, say, receiving a blood transfusion
> before a bike race is an example of mankind's
> cherished "spontaneity". But then clarity of
> thought and expression is not exactly a Parr forte.
>
> It's also more than a little ironic that someone
> who claims to favor "spontaneity" would be
> a defender of author GM Larry Evans, the USCF's
> very own apparatchik-for-life whose career for
> the past several decades has consisted of recycling
> old stories from the 50's and 60's. This recycling
> technique has been adopted by Parr himself for
> rgcp, where he posts the same dishonest
> and flawed arguments, verbatim, over and over
> and over.
help bot
> In the case of drug testing, men of mind are
> asked not only to participate in a physical command --
> but, still worse, a physical command that all of us
> recognize as irrational (there is no drug problem in
> chess) and based on power politics.
If I am reading this correctly, the real issue here is
that a few FIDE officials exert power over even the
most arrogant of GMs. This reminds me of Gary
Kasparov's misadventures, his formation of one
organization after another in search of a dictatorial
control to match that of the evil scum who rule FIDE.
It's an ego-stroking thing.
> Larry Evans' column in magazines and newspapers
> are an enormous success for one reason: readers enjoy him
> and learn from his experiences. His books are best-sellers,
> some even considered classics, in our little world of chess.
While many enjoy reading about the political side
of chess, there are plenty of others who disagree
with GM Evans' very biased views, or who are more
interested in improving their game. (Unfortunately,
after some painful experiences in which impudent
weakies pinpointed analytical errors by the huffy
oldster, that part of his column was discontinued.)
> We have noted before that in every Chess Life
> survey ever conducted
So long ago! As pedant Edward Winter has pointed
out, more recently Mr. Evans work has gone downhill
to the point where he cannot keep his facts straight,
and often makes embarrassing gaffes like the ones
he pinpointed in his vicious article: The Facts About
Larry Evans.
> GM Evans scored at or near the
> top. For a while, he and Andy Soltis traded places in
> the surveys for the gold medal.
By strange coincidence, there two also had the
most space in the magazine, and the most leeway
to write about whatever they wanted. Too bad for
the likes of GM Pal Benko, who was stuck toward
the back and forced to write about the part that
every duffer most dreads; or that guy -- what was
his name? -- who had a small slot devoted only to
chess problems, also hidden toward the back of
the magazine. (But before anyone calls me biased,
let me point out that the letters to the editor were
nearer the front, maybe.)
> For deacdes he was
> still one of the two key adornments to the magazine, in
> the views of thousands of readers who answered surveys.
I want a *fair* comparison: let's say that all these
guys get rotated around, trading jobs for a year or
two -- THEN we take another survey. Whaddayasay?
And for a control, let Sam Sloan and IM Innes have
a shot; let them in on the rotation, so we can see if
the insiders can compete with outside competition.
(I can't wait to see LE try to take on endgames... .)
-- help bot
The Historian
> Possibly the most fascinating facet of the battle
> over drug testing in chess is how it draws a line
> between types of people -- though not quite the same
> line that W. S. Gilbert suggested in his rhyme, "Every
> little boy and girl alive/Is born a little liberal or
> conservative." With a long "i" in "conserative."
I think you are misremembering Private Willis' song that opens Act II
of Iolanthe. The quotation runs:
I often think it's comical/
Fa lal lal
How Nature always does contrive/
Fa lal lal
Every boy and every girl/
that's born into the world alive/
Is either a little Liberal/
or else a little Conservative.
http://math.boisestate.edu/GaS/iolanthe/web_op/iol14.html
And the complete text:
When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any.
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical - Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive - Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!
When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.'s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let's rejoice with loud Fal la - Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive - Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!
Sorry to correct you, Larry, but I take my G & S seriously.
help bot
wrote:
> Every boy and every girl/
> that's born into the world alive/
> Is either a little Liberal/
> or else a little Conservative.
All black or white -- no shades of gray?
What simpletons! What mindless hay.
When queried doth Republicans say,
that all against them be Democrats today!
And when narrow minded Donkeys bray,
they too appear to think that way -- but it's
just reversed, or so they say.
Such narrowness of mind betrays, a gaping
breach in cerebellum-rays.
Forsooth! Both sides have gone astray.
For life is quite filled with shades of gray.
With things which be not here nor there,
which exist in states of "everywhere".
Fa la la, la la la la.
-- help bot
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two
>position that Frtiz couldn't solve.
Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in
Forsyth notation.
Mike Murray
<nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing
>is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players?
Yeah, a lot of folks probably *like* to pee in a bottle while Big
Nurse watches.
> try brownies instead.
You, of course, refer to the Alice B Toklas variety.
help bot
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two
> >position that Frtiz couldn't solve.
>
> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in
> Forsyth notation.
Here it is, in archaic Andean, just as nearly-an-IM
Innes sent it to me:
--------------
Rouge:
Cezar de squar nthnyetfirth
de la Dame ver sevnyact cesar
Twain Gnight por favor le nyxt squar pa
und ver severales peons, squars normales
Ebon:
Cezar de squar bak-ryght cornero
Ebon de zug, le finito-en-twain
--------------
-- help bot
help bot
> > Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing
> >is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players?
>
> Yeah, a lot of folks probably *like* to pee in a bottle while Big
> Nurse watches.
Generally speaking, a pee-cup is handed over
and you are instructed to enter a private restroom,
later emerging after handing the now-filled cup
over, through a slot in the wall. It is revealed that
yes, like all mammals, you urinate, and if this is
too "embarrassing" to handle, perhaps therapy is
in order.
"Um, no illegal drug use detected fella, but did
you know you have kidney stones the size of
peas, and are about two months pregnant?"
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two
position that Frtiz couldn't solve.> -- Phil Innes
>Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in Forsyth notation. -- Mike Murray
Don't know about the mate-in-2 but here is a position that stymied
FRITZ in 2005, though programs today can probably solve it easily.
Maybe there's even a cook.
Evans On Chess, October 2005 (page 44)
HAVE A GOOD KNIGHT
Ludwig Arndt
San Jose, California
Q. In a lecture several years ago at the Far West Open in Reno you
showed a problem that FRITZ was unable to solve and [you] woke up with
the solution requiring multiple knight promotions. Could you give it
again? Who composed it?
A. I don't know who composed this amazing problem.
wKe6,Nb4,Be1,Pb3,e7
bKa7,Nb5,h6,Bg4,Pa6,d3,f3,f5
White to play and win
SOLUTION: 1 Nc6+ Kb7 2 Na5+ Kb6 3 Bf2+ Kxa5 4 e8=Q Nc7+ 5 Kd6 Ne8+ 6
Kc5 d2 7 Bd4! d1=N 8 Be5! f2 9 Bf4! f1=N 10 Bg4 Nf7 11 Bh4 Nc3 12 Be1
and Bxc3 mate.
parrt...@cs.com
TYPO
SOLUTION: 1 Nc6+ Kb7 2 Na5+ Kb6 3 Bf2+ Kxa5 4 e8=Q Nc7+ 5 Kd6 Ne8+ 6
Kc5 d2 7 Bd4! d1=N 8 Be5! f2 9 Bf4! f1=N 10 Bg5 (NOT Bg4) Nf7 11 Bh4
Chess One
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:8ifvk3l833j8psee4...@4ax.com...
A Forsyth Saga? Go ahead, have a google. But tell us, Mike. If you did find
the unpreposterous position, what then? Anything? I've been through this
Kingstonite stuff before, where writers give their verdict, bet [nothing!]
then 'request' information. You would almost think they didn't want to find
anything out, or mention some taboo aspect of things.
Phil
help bot
That's not even close to a match ("mate in two"), but anyway,
there are some special versions of chess programs which are
designed to sniff out mates; however, I wonder if all of them
consider under-promotions, since in the old days that would
have put a huge drag on calculation speed.
Also note that the answer was requested in Forsyth notation,
but a miss (by a country mile) was instead delivered in plain old
style English text that even I could read.
In any case, the point was that IM Innes is grossly mistaken,
as usual; there is no legal mate-in-two position which Fritz
cannot solve, given several days to ponder.
-- help bot
Mike Murray
<nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 30, 2:48 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>> > Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing
>> >is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players?
>> Yeah, a lot of folks probably *like* to pee in a bottle while Big
>> Nurse watches.
> Generally speaking, a pee-cup is handed over
>and you are instructed to enter a private restroom,
>later emerging after handing the now-filled cup
>over, through a slot in the wall. It is revealed that
>yes, like all mammals, you urinate, and if this is
>too "embarrassing" to handle, perhaps therapy is
>in order.
Generally speaking, you're evidently referring to the experience with
your family doc, you know when you bring the cup back from the private
room and he asks, "now would you like the blue glove or the pink?".
But, no, this ain't the way a drug test is done. Not since folks
started bringing their own bottles (supplied earlier by a "clean"
buddy) to the party, carried low so it has the proper temperature. No,
somebody watches. And they watch closely. Anatomically correct
vinyl replacements for the personal bottle are available.
You think I'm kidding? Are things that sheltered in Ohio? OK, read
this:
http://www.ureasample.com/pass-drug-test/24-hour-urine-test.shtml
Mike Murray
wrote:
>"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>news:8ifvk3l833j8psee4...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two
>>>position that Frtiz couldn't solve.
>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in
>> Forsyth notation.
>A Forsyth Saga? Go ahead, have a google.
This is a text newsgroup, Phil, so I was suggesting you supply the
position in a text-only format. In case you're really ignorant of
what Forsyth notation really is, read this:
http://www.chesscorner.com/tutorial/basic/forsyth/forsyth.htm
>But tell us, Mike. If you did find
>the unpreposterous position, what then? Anything? I've been through this
>Kingstonite stuff before, where writers give their verdict, bet [nothing!]
>then 'request' information. You would almost think they didn't want to find
>anything out, or mention some taboo aspect of things.
Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil. It doesn't
exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing
smoke. We both know that.
Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program)
couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of
computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve
any conceivable mate in two.
Now, one could construct a scenario where the computer didn't
"understand" the complete set-up regarding the right to castle. Or
one could construct some position which upon analysis would turn out
be impossible, and analysis would reveal what the last move must have
been, and THEN we get a mate in two. I'm sure Dr. Dowd could find us
one of those little gems.
But a real, no-funny-business mate in two that Fritz couldn't solve??
No way.
parrt...@cs.com
< I wonder if all of them consider under-promotions, since in the old
days that would
have put a huge drag on calculation speed.> -- help bot
FRITZ couldn't solve the problem -- and claimed Black was winning! --
even though it allowed for knight underpromotions when the problem was
posed to it.
Just as Greg Kennedy claimed that GM Larry Evans' games were hard to
find (another whopper) he simply has no concept of how urine tests are
conducted in sporting events nowadays. Nor does he realize that out-of-
competition testing requires top players to give FIDE access to their
medical records and their whereabouts at all times so they can be
tested even when not competing if there is a knock on the door.
> But, no, this ain't the way a drug test is done. Not since folks
> started bringing their own bottles (supplied earlier by a "clean"
> buddy) to the party, carried low so it has the proper temperature. No,
> somebody watches. And they watch closely. Anatomically correct
> vinyl replacements for the personal bottle are available. You think I'm kidding?
< Are things that sheltered in Ohio? OK, read this:> --- Murray to
Kennedy
It's Indiana, Mike, not Ohio. Greg Kennedy has polluted this
newsgroup with more nonsense than any other poster.
Mike Murray
>< Are things that sheltered in Ohio? OK, read this:> --- Murray to
>Kennedy
> It's Indiana, Mike, not Ohio.
Ooops. I must have been confused by continental drift. Upon mature
reflection, I realize Indiana no more in common with Ohio than, say,
Eastern Montana has in common with Western North Dakota. Mea Culpa.
BTW, I've cranked up Rybka with your problem and it's been running
over 7 minutes as I write this -- no answer yet. It's a good one.
Mike Murray
But doesn't 4 ... Kb4 monkey wrench it (although White still has a won
game) ?
SBD
> Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil. It doesn't
> exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing
> smoke. We both know that.
>
> Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program)
> couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of
> computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve
> any conceivable mate in two.
I would like to see the position. Phil's reluctance to provide it does
seem bizarre....
Now sometimes people don't use Fritz's mate solving mode - when I was
writing my column I got all kinds of mail from people who claimed that
there was no mate in 2 or 3, but that there was one in 3 or 4. The
analysis mode finds mates quickly instead of finding the quickest
mate, especially in problems of 2 to 4 moves.
Y Afek, the FM and world class study composer, wrote an article in EG
about a tournament that had a problem for solving each day for the
spectators. Many would submit incorrect answers, claim no mate in x,
etc, and it was finally realized that these folks were using Fritz
(and not even correctly!) instead of solving the problems themselves.
I believe the CB people themselves gave the same explanation as I did
above - finds mates quickly, which Afek critiqued - however, that
strikes me as pragmatic and similar to how humans would proceed - in a
game, do you care that you missed a mate in 3 when you see a forced
mate in 4? Maybe a little.
The mate solving mode in Fritz will miss continuations in the play,
mostly in longmovers, and it botches helpmates occasionally. And as
Mike notes, there are problems in retro-analysis, e.p., sometimes, but
not that often can computers be "fooled" in this manner.
SBD
> RESIDENT LOON WRONG AGAIN
Greg Kennedy has polluted this
> newsgroup with more nonsense than any other poster.
Pot. kettle. black.
Chess One
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:30:37 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>>news:8ifvk3l833j8psee4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a
>>>>mate-in-two
>>>>position that Frtiz couldn't solve.
>
>>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in
>>> Forsyth notation.
>
>>A Forsyth Saga? Go ahead, have a google.
>
> This is a text newsgroup, Phil, so I was suggesting you supply the
> position in a text-only format. In case you're really ignorant of
> what Forsyth notation really is, read this:
I am not, being a real chess journalist. In case you are ignorant of google,
try that, since you would rather I do your work for you. Its there - I
reported in it my column and Alexandra reported it elsewhere too....
> http://www.chesscorner.com/tutorial/basic/forsyth/forsyth.htm
>
>>But tell us, Mike. If you did find
>>the unpreposterous position, what then? Anything? I've been through this
>>Kingstonite stuff before, where writers give their verdict, bet [nothing!]
>>then 'request' information. You would almost think they didn't want to
>>find
>>anything out, or mention some taboo aspect of things.
>
> Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil.
Well, Mike Murray isn't becuase he would rather be, what is it, clever on
newsgroups, than research what he challenges? Join the crowd, Mr. Murray!
> It doesn't
> exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing
> smoke. We both know that.
I challenged you to be normal - like what would you do if proved wrong? We
both know /that/, but since you can't bother to look you whine, and say what
'we' know.
pfft!
What a bloody nonsense! You are equally disposed to trashing others, of
note.
> Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program)
> couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of
> computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve
> any conceivable mate in two.
I spoke of a specific position. I don't care about old Ataris.
> Now, one could construct a scenario where the computer didn't
> "understand" the complete set-up regarding the right to castle. Or
> one could construct some position which upon analysis would turn out
> be impossible, and analysis would reveal what the last move must have
> been, and THEN we get a mate in two. I'm sure Dr. Dowd could find us
> one of those little gems.
>
> But a real, no-funny-business mate in two that Fritz couldn't solve??
> No way.
And you self imposed penance is?
I mean, you are very willing to call other people shit, how shall we call
you?
Phil Innes
help bot
> Generally speaking, you're evidently referring to the experience with
> your family doc, you know when you bring the cup back from the private
> room and he asks, "now would you like the blue glove or the pink?".
>
> But, no, this ain't the way a drug test is done. Not since folks
> started bringing their own bottles (supplied earlier by a "clean"
> buddy) to the party, carried low so it has the proper temperature. No,
> somebody watches. And they watch closely. Anatomically correct
> vinyl replacements for the personal bottle are available.
>
> You think I'm kidding? Are things that sheltered in Ohio? OK, read
> this:
>
> http://www.ureasample.com/pass-drug-test/24-hour-urine-test.shtml
Cute. But of course, as we are all chess players,
not witless dolts, a number of simple solutions
leap to mind instantly; for instance, you are given
a bottle of orange Gatorade, asked to consume it
(not the bottle, the contents) and then of course
your artificial pee sample will be /defective/ in that
it has no funky orange coloring.
Likewise, a swab of the inner cheeks, a forcibly
taken blood sample, and a few locks of hair -- all
taken while the victim is unconscious -- uh, I meant
the subject, of course -- will circumvent any such
chicanery. An unconscious trickster is a poor
trickster indeed; a simple whack to the base of
the skull, delivered with a triple-weighted Dreuke
King in hand, and problem solved.
I don't know, but it seems that the method is being
attacked here, rather than the /principle/ of testing
itself; this implies that improvement is necessary,
but it hardly argues against the /idea/ of testing for
drug use. Likewise, when the thinking-impaired
suggest that no drug has /ever/ helped anyone win
even a single game of chess, it suggests that what
is needed is electro-shock therapy, to help re-
connect the blithering imbecile with reality.
But again, I see cheating in other ways as a far
greater problem in chess; consulting other players
during play or even consulting computers, are
undoubtedly far greater threats to the integrity of
fair competition than drug use, and to this we can
add the prearrangement of results and the throwing
of games.
-- help bot
Chess One
"SBD" <DrD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93906508-b5f6-4b4b...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 30, 10:16 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>> Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil. It doesn't
>> exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing
>> smoke. We both know that.
>>
>> Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program)
>> couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of
>> computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve
>> any conceivable mate in two.
>
> I would like to see the position. Phil's reluctance to provide it does
> seem bizarre....
many things 'seem' to those who don't know nuthin, what is that to me?
maybe someone will put something up against their 'seems' since otherwise
they 'seem' rather lame to me, and certainly to alexandra!
no takers, really? :)
every son of a bitch has a 'seems' but when it comes down to it, its usually
pure Kingstonite
PI
help bot
> Now sometimes people don't use Fritz's mate solving mode - when I was
> writing my column I got all kinds of mail from people who claimed that
> there was no mate in 2 or 3, but that there was one in 3 or 4. The
> analysis mode finds mates quickly instead of finding the quickest
> mate, especially in problems of 2 to 4 moves.
I have noticed a similar problem with other programs
as well. One has popped up a mate-in-X during normal
analysis, then change its mind and gone to (X + 1), for
instance.
> Y Afek, the FM and world class study composer, wrote an article in EG
> about a tournament that had a problem for solving each day for the
> spectators. Many would submit incorrect answers, claim no mate in x,
> etc, and it was finally realized that these folks were using Fritz
> (and not even correctly!) instead of solving the problems themselves.
> I believe the CB people themselves gave the same explanation as I did
> above - finds mates quickly, which Afek critiqued - however, that
> strikes me as pragmatic and similar to how humans would proceed - in a
> game, do you care that you missed a mate in 3 when you see a forced
> mate in 4?
Yes, I do. *If* I took the time to search for the
best move, and if I was not in severe time pressure,
it would bother me that I could not see a simple
mate-in-three. Not long ago, I missed precisely
that, a forced mate-in-three, and some other duffer
pointed out the correct move (but as a mate-in-two,
missing an obvious zwichenzug) after the game.
> The mate solving mode in Fritz will miss continuations in the play,
> mostly in longmovers, and it botches helpmates occasionally. And as
> Mike notes, there are problems in retro-analysis, e.p., sometimes, but
> not that often can computers be "fooled" in this manner.
Ah, but Fritz is not the problem here; the problem
here is that people are taking IM Innes seriously.
LOL
-- help bot
Mike Murray
wrote:
>>>>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a
>>>>>mate-in-two position that Frtiz couldn't solve.
>>>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position
>...being a real chess journalist.... I
>reported in it my column and Alexandra reported it elsewhere too....
I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the
page http://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml
Well, guess what Phil. I entered the into Fritz. Now, I have
several engines that can run under the Fritz User Interface. I
started with the oldest. Fritz 5.32, a much older version, solved it
instantly. Fritz8, Fritz9 and Fritz10, using the Mate Search option
solved it instantly. Rybka solved it instantly. Some of the other
engines found longer mates.
Now, why would Kosteniuk claim that Fritz couldn't solve it?
Obviously, she was misled by the fact that if you don't specify "Mate
Search" with Fritz 8, 9 or 10, it finds a mate in 4 and quits looking.
She confused a side effect of an optimization tweak with an
*inability* to solve a problem.
Is this because Fritz 10 plays a weaker game than it's ancestor Fritz
5.32? No. It's because you haven't *told* it to work in problem
solving mode. (Tools -->Analysis -->Mate Search on the menu). If you
tell it to solve a forced mate problem, it finds the mate in two
instantly.
Human players work the same way. If I show you a position and ask,
"what would you play here, Phil?", you'll proceed very differently
than if I say, "find the mate in two, Phil".
Now, to anticipate your coming evasion to the effect, "well you had to
put it problem solving mode, so it doesn't count" -- remember, it was
still Fritz 10 that solved it, not Herman 3.0.
You should investigate stuff like this Phil, instead of mindlessly
repeating authority figures' claims. It's the difference between
being a journalist and an RSS feed.
J.D. Walker
Ah ha Mr. Murray! I've caught you red-handed. I see the red hunting
cap perched jauntily on yer noggin, the many pocketed vest around yer
torso, the heavy blunderbuss at you shoulder. And what are you doing
with that crate of evidence... er ammunition? You must realize that it
is not duck hunting season and in any case you do not have a duck
hunting license.
Even though from a distance that may seem a journalist, in reality it is
a duck. If you were closer, you would doubtless know that it both
SEEMED and WAS a duck. Any resemblance to a journalist is pure illusion
in this vaporous peat bog.
So put the gun away and go home. Wait for duck hunting season to roll
around. Buy a proper hunting license. You wouldn't want to pay the
hefty fines we dole out in rgcp would you? :^)
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.