I think that there is a major difference between chess and more mainstream sports where drug testing is common. In weight lifting, for example, there are drugs that will allow you to preform feats that are otherwise beyond your abilities.
In chess, while there are substances that can increase focus, that focus is worthless unless you can capitalize on it. Personally, I can't see a mate in six. I fail to see how taking anything would make me better.
On a side note, I have a rather colorful group of friends. I've played againt them on marijuana, dizapam, adderol and a while host of both legal, illeagle and dcidedly grey substances (all while sober, or at best having a beer in me). I can say that I haven't noticed anything that improves anything. Folks on adderol will have their mind buzzing, but they will be more intent on moving rather than playing out all the possiable scenarios (they're actually kind of annoying). Other things like Lunesta might do a bit, but not much.
As to caffeine, well, I think that it should not be considered. The point was made earlier that second hand smoke gives them a headache. Valid point. Were someone smoking across the board from me and it was effecting my game, I would politly ask them to stop and I would bank on them taking the higher road and putting it out. Similarly though, I get HORRIABLE headaches if I don't have caffiene on a daily basis. In worse times, I had to have an almost constant stream of caffiene to keep me going. I would be dibilated were forced to go a day w/o coffee.
"There's a reason, because its cheating, someone who uses drugs to enhance his play makes a handicap on everyone how doesn't. And if he is same as good without them, why is he using them in first place? "
Just calling something a name does not making automatically morally wrong. And that was my point, if you do tests, you are doubtless going to have people circumvent this; whereas if they are an option to both parties, there is no longer that issue of inequality! As for taking them if you don't need to, I'm not sure how it enters into anything though, if it helps, good for him, if it doesn't or if it's detrimental, than it's his decision and none else to blame.
"In psychoactive drugs there's no sense, a guy on them could barely see the board and belive he's on jumanji rather than playing chess "
On the other hand, that would make him more 'involved' in a way. Plus, as Tal said: "He can only take them one at a time!" :p
Is this a serious issue? People take things like this too seriously in my opinion.
It was a humorous post that was taken too seriously . . .i said that allready . . . but it is becoming interesting discussion. . . If someone start testing people that play chess for beer or any other alcohol (CH3CH2OH) i would organise chess resistance. . .
Viva la resistance . . .
... or the parent that kills their kids with second hand smoke?
Could you please cite a case?
That is absolute nonsense. Kids would have been dropping like flies in the 40s 50s 60s and 70s, including me. Maybe an extreme asthmatic could have a fit and need treatment, but that is hardly the norm.
In my opinion drug testing should only be used when your job can cause injury to yourself or others. Anything else is an infringement on privacy.
Well it's pretty obvious it affected you.....
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422#four
Obviously your parents smoked if you think it's ok to smoke. Smoking does do one positive thing: it gives us a voluntary tax against idiots. Kinda like the lottery, but your odds are worse.
Wow ! You scold me for pointing out an error in another players game and accuse me of "dashing their ego" but then cut loose with something like this?! tsk tsk tsk You are one nasty fellow and a hypocrite to boot but maybe you think calling people and their parents idiots will boost their ego? Oh.....both my parents smoked yet I never did. I dont consider either of my parents idiots. I guess noone in your family ever smoked? If they did we know what you consider them to be now don't we ?
I think that we should let everybody do any drug they wish in any sport. Drugs can only take them so far. What about bionic prosthetics? That's where I'd draw the line. Artificial body parts I'd be against. Computer chip implants for chess players? Hmmmmmm...... It's all coming so we better be prepared to challenge the issues. Good discussion.
Yet again, Ray finds humor in serious situations. Viva La Ray!
But, on a more serious note, why is it that, whenever a player loses an argument on these forums, they immediately resort to insults, rather than reinforcing their point? There is absolutely no reason for comment like Fotoman's.
I don't believe there are any currently known psychoactive substances that would legitimately, consistently and noticeably enhance a player's abilities. Small amounts of caffeine have been shown to make subjects more alert and enhance (to a certain extent) some brain functions. Other medications such as Ritalin (Methylphenidate) and Adderall, primarily used to treat ADHD and narcolepsy, have different and sometimes unpredictable effects on subjects not taking it for a legitimate medicinal purpose.
As far as substances considered to be recreational, I imagine the majority of chess players would find themselves hindered rather than helped. I also imagine many of the readers of this post would find every word to be quite obvious.
Oh, and Fotoman, please shut up.
As Mavis311 pointed out, the only drug that might marginally affect a person's chess play in any positive fashion is the one drug nobody would want banned - caffeine. Even if caffeine might increase a person's alertness in the short run, it might also affect him detrimentally in the long run. So, the idea of drug testing for chess is a rather ludicrous waste of time and resourses. No drug increases a person's chess ability - only study and hard work can do that.
Personally, I'd prefer that my opponents use drugs. The more drugs, the better!
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.