Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 5th 08, 03:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Chess Dopes

More doping in chess to accommodate WADA. Chess will be dope tested in
Beijing, even though it is admitted to be no point to it. It is unclear
about American players, since USCF had said 'no dope testing here', but on
previous occassions did not insist that US players overseas should not be
tested during chess Olympiads, for example.

Phil Innes

---

First World Mind Sports Games to be held in Beijing in October
The Associated Press
Published: June 4, 2008

ATHENS, Greece : The Olympics and Paralympics won't be the only global
multi-sports events in Beijing this year.

The Chinese capital will host the first World Mind Sports Games from Oct.
3-18, featuring five events and - yes - doping controls.

About 3,000 competitors from more than 100 countries will be competing for
35 gold medals in chess, bridge, draughts (checkers), Go and Xiang Qi
(Chinese chess), the International Mind Sports Association annnounced
Wednesday at a sports conference in Athens.

"We clearly consider ourselves a sport," IMSA president Jose Damiani said.
"Our events are no different from physical sports. They are all sports."

Damiani said there are 1 billion people around the world who play the games,
which are represented by 500 national sports federations.

The bridge and chess federations are already recognized by the International
Olympic Committee, but that doesn't entitle them to become Olympic sports.

Still, the mind sports group hopes the IOC will eventually accept them into
the Olympic program.

"We hope that this event in Beijing will be so important and so big that the
IOC will understand that they need us," said Georgios Makropoulos, vice
president of the global chess federation.

Meantime, competitors will have to undergo doping checks just like Olympic
athletes.

The bridge and chess federations have signed up to the World Anti-Doping
Code and do their own testing, with no positive results so far.

Damiani said there definitely will be doping controls for chess and bridge
in Beijing, and probably for the other events, too.

"We are following the (WADA) instructions, but we don't see where there
could be drugs to make you play better," Makropoulos said.

Source: International Herald Tribune


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 5th 08, 03:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Chess Dopes

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:35:00 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

More doping in chess to accommodate WADA. Chess will be dope tested in
Beijing, even though it is admitted to be no point to it. It is unclear
about American players, since USCF had said 'no dope testing here', but on
previous occassions did not insist that US players overseas should not be
tested during chess Olympiads, for example.

Phil Innes


Our officials say, "no dope testing of American players on our watch!
-- oh, it's a Rolex, ummm, well, uhh, international harmony and
all..."
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 07:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Chess Dopes

What the Delegates actually voted was:

"46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
Games. (2001)"

Kind of wimpy, but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
laziness and stupidity will cover it. There is no mention of drug
testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
drug testing in U.S. tournaments.

What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 08:29 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Chess Dopes

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:54:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

What the Delegates actually voted was:


"46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
Games. (2001)"


Kind of wimpy,


Seems more than wimpy. Seems a way to claim they resisted FIDE when
they actually caved.

but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
laziness and stupidity will cover it.


Normally, I'd agree with you, but, as I understand it, one or more of
our delegates accepted very expensive gifts / gratuities (Rolex
watches) from parties interested in their votes. While this, even if
true, doesn't *prove* that the votes of these folks were influenced by
said gratuities, accepting stuff like this is nominally a firing
offense in the government or corporate world.

There is no mention of drug
testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
drug testing in U.S. tournaments.


From what I've read, FIDE has claimed they have no current plans to
demand such tests, but implied they have the power to do so.

What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.


Well, Parr is quite capable of representing his own positions, but as
I understand him, he claims the drug testing is a way of asserting
dominance, claiming turf, degrading the national federations' control
over their players and competitive environments.
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 12:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Chess Dopes

wrote:
What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most
obvious) make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess
players is a dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured
servants of Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any
tournament is voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.


This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable alternative.
Since national chess federations hold something close to a monopoly on
the organization of chess tournaments, there is no reasonable
alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't class `not
playing' as a reasonable alternative.

If there was a good reason for drugs testing in chess or if the
majority of chess players were in favour of drugs testing, it would be
a different matter. However, as far as I can see, there is no good
reason for drugs testing (other than a bone-headed desire to get into
the Olympic games, which the IOC is against because it doesn't feel
that mind sports are `sports' in the sense that they are interested
in) or any support at all from the chess-playing public or chess
professionals (at least, this is what I infer: I cannot recall ever
having heard any chess player express support for drugs testing in
chess).


Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous T-Shirt (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement but it could explode
at any minute!


  #6   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 01:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Chess Dopes


wrote in message
...
What the Delegates actually voted was:

"46. Drug Testing. The Delegates believe that drug testing is
unnecessary in chess and urge FIDE to limit testing only to events
where it is absolutely essential for qualification into the Olympic
Games. (2001)"


'urge' ?

Kind of wimpy, but there's no reason to suggest corruption when
laziness and stupidity will cover it. There is no mention of drug
testing in the U.S., since as far as I know no one has ever suggested
drug testing in U.S. tournaments.


Fide have started running rated tournaments here, and btw, with their own
rating system. I also think Fide will not suggest drug testing, but simply
do it. But that is beside the point since the direct issue is what, of
anything, USCF have 'urged' onto Fide in respect of US players.

This instance covers potential American players in Beijing - therefore it is
appropriate to understand the force of that 'urge'. Anyone know any more
than that?

What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most obvious)
make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess players is a
dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured servants of
Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any tournament is
voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.


If you don't like the Republican party, don't vote in the election?

Drug Testing brings chess into disrepute by electing to associate it with
drug-culture in sports. That is what's wrong with it. For chess players to
be offered the option to not play is in fact precisely that of a Soviet
government.

If USCF has a governance role at all [? has it?] then to what extent does it
represent actual players?
If the vast majority of US chess players detest the very idea of drug
testing, as demeaning as well as being without any possible value, then does
USCF have any obligation to honor those views?

The way to eliminate drug testing is to declare that no US player will be
tested anywhere in the world.

Phil Innes


  #7   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 01:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Chess Dopes



Chess One wrote:

Fide have started running rated tournaments here, and btw, with their own
rating system. I also think Fide will not suggest drug testing, but simply
do it. But that is beside the point since the direct issue is what, of
anything, USCF have 'urged' onto Fide in respect of US players.

Phil Innes


I think there's one organizer (maybe two) who wanted to run a FIDE-
rated tournament that wasn't USCF-rated. It's insignificant, and it
shows every sign of staying that way. None of the real organizers in
the U.S. have shown any interest in this or in drug testing. And it's
worth noting that FIDE rating fees -- the ones FIDE charges the
national federations, not the ones the USCF charges organizers -- are
_very high_ by U.S. standards. "Creeping FIDE-ism" is sheer paranoia.

I agree that the Delegates ought to have taken a stronger line on
this, as a matter of principle. But as a practical matter, it seem
pretty minor.
  #8   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 01:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Chess Dopes



David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
What puzzles me is why some people (Larry Parr being the most
obvious) make such a big deal about this. Drug testing of chess
players is a dumb idea, but since players are no longer indentured
servants of Soviet and satellite governments, participation in any
tournament is voluntary. If you don't like it, don't play.


This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable alternative.
Since national chess federations hold something close to a monopoly on
the organization of chess tournaments, there is no reasonable
alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't class `not
playing' as a reasonable alternative.



Dave.



I'm not quite clear on what you mean by that. Perhaps matters are
different in Europe, but the USCF _organizes_ very few tournaments.
Nearly all such activity in the U.S. is private. If you don't like one
organizer's tournaments, you play in someone else's. If you mean "sets
standards and provides rating and advertising services that nearly all
organizers need and use," OK. I would also agree that _if_ the USCF
decreed drug testing in tournaments, we'd have a problem. But that's a
low-probability counterfactual, and I can't see the point of debating
it as a pure hypothetical.
  #9   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 02:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Chess Dopes

wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable
alternative. Since national chess federations hold something close
to a monopoly on the organization of chess tournaments, there is no
reasonable alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't
class `not playing' as a reasonable alternative.


I'm not quite clear on what you mean by that. Perhaps matters are
different in Europe, but the USCF _organizes_ very few tournaments.


No, usually the tournaments are organized independently, to the local
federation's standards.

I would also agree that _if_ the USCF decreed drug testing in
tournaments, we'd have a problem. But that's a low-probability
counterfactual, and I can't see the point of debating it as a pure
hypothetical.


Ah. In that case, we were talking at crossed purposes -- I thought
that was precisely the scenario that was under discussion.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Confusing Cheese (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a brick of cheese but you can't
understand it and you can never put
it down!
  #10   Report Post  
Old June 6th 08, 03:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Default Chess Dopes

In article ,
David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
[...] Drug testing of chess
players is a dumb idea, but [...]. If you don't like it, don't play.

This kind of argument only works if there is a reasonable alternative.
Since national chess federations hold something close to a monopoly on
the organization of chess tournaments,


??? How many chess tournaments in England are you claiming
are organised by the ECF? A handful of events [inc 4NCL] require
the players to be *members* of their national federations, but the
great majority are "pay your money and play", organised by locals
with no ECF involvement.

there is no reasonable
alternative to playing under their rules. And I don't class `not
playing' as a reasonable alternative.


Well, we play under FIDE rules because otherwise we wouldn't
be playing the same game. When FIDE changes the rules in a daft way,
local leagues and tournaments just ignore them. Sometimes we do this
even when the rules aren't entirely daft [eg the mobile phone rules].
FIDE and ECF could start making more draconian rules, but this would
simply lead to disaffiliations and breakaways.

If there was a good reason for drugs testing in chess or if the
majority of chess players were in favour of drugs testing, it would be
a different matter. However, as far as I can see, there is no good
reason for drugs testing (other than a bone-headed desire to get into
the Olympic games, which the IOC is against because it doesn't feel
that mind sports are `sports' in the sense that they are interested
in) [...].


There speaks the idealist. Whether or not chess is in the
Olympic Games [which is not called the Olympic Sports], it matters
to chess players that it be recognised by governments as a sport
-- as indeed it specifically is in the UK. This is not to do with
you sitting in a dingy back room in the pub and playing chess with
your mates, if that is your wish. It is to do with money. Large
amounts of money. Huge amounts of money, by the standards of chess.
Your taxes and mine are poured into support for archery, badminton,
synchronised swimming, beach volleyball, tennis -- sports great and
small, into their facilities, coaches, juniors, .... Money comes
from government grants, charities, corporate sponsorship, etc., and
the total is many billions each year. Sport is big business.

A mere 0.01%, even 0.001%, of that would transform chess.
Whether for better or worse, as far as ordinary chess players are
concerned is another matter; but you can be in no doubt that it
would be *hugely* to the benefit of titled players, coaches, juniors,
arbiters, authors -- and, of course, the ECF and other organisations
and organisers. And before you say "Oh, the ECF", don't forget that
if you are playing any rated chess at all the ECF is *you*. Your
clubs and teams and tournaments have votes at county and other levels,
which send delegates to the ECF, who determine how chess is run in
England.

Chess actually has a very good image. There are not very
many activities which can be undertaken at a high level and on a
level playing field by 7yos and 90yos, by able and disabled, by
men and women, by amateur and professional. It keeps thousands of
children off the street, and doing something mind-stretching. Lots
of companies, schools and public bodies would *like* to sponsor
chess, and to use it in their advertising and publicity. But they
don't know how to categorise it, and you get bounced around between
education, entertainment and sport.

The UK government has now defined it to be a sport. It does
not matter whether *you* think of it as a sport, what matters is that
it *has* a category that you can wave at newspapers, local radio and
TV, your council, lottery funds, charities, companies, .... That's
a huge benefit to those of us who are trying to run tournaments and
leagues; the benefit to you personally may be less direct. But get
involved, and you'll see.

All of this has very little to do with drugs. IMHO, it's
a pity that the drug-testing aspects have taken over much of the
debate, because in real life it will get smoothed over in some
pragmatic way. No-one is going to take samples from you when you
happen to win your game in the local league or championship; and
no-one is going to strip a GM of his title because he drinks too
much coffee. Everyone knows it's a nonsense, and the need is to
find some formula that saves faces. Taking up entrenched positions
makes that process harder.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 24 February 29th 08 03:55 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 19th 06 05:44 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 18th 05 05:36 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017