Markovich wrote on 12/03/08 at 17:15:58:

I live in a country where the state does take quite a bit of responsibility for what kinds of people children grow up to be, and imho we are none the worse for it. Ideally social control should always be accountable to the press and public and for a really good purpose. And of course if the politicians exercise more control than people tolerate, they will be thrown out of office next election. You and drkodos seem to put the cart before the horse; the state invents pretend "good purposes" in order to exercise control. Of course with corruption and lust for power omnipresent this is sometimes what happens, but it's not something anyone would advocate as sound politics. Thus you are really arguing against a straw man here.
Markovich wrote on 12/03/08 at 17:15:58:

I didn't mean to try to silence anyone. You are free to express your opinion. But beneath our disagreement about drugs in chess lies a deeper disagreement about bans on drugs in general, and an even deeper disagrement on the usefulness of banning things that are bad for people's health in general. My point was simply that it is better to acknowledge the basic ideological differences straight away, rather than argue fruitlessly back and forth on a surface issue (a problem with 90% of the political TV/radio debates I have ever heard btw.). This discussion has largely confirmed my notion of a culture difference, although I realize there are quite a few europeans on the ultra-liberal side as well.

Willempie wrote on 12/03/08 at 20:14:24:

I was referring ironically to the general anti-state control attitude of drkodos, as in f.ex. "All these drug policies are draconian legislation to control people and entrench the powers of the state over the individual. " You see, in my world there is a place for the state sometimes helping people avoid ruining their lives. 
Of course there are lots of problems with FIDE, which is why my comment that anyone who doesn't want to follow the rules can leave wasn't merely a rhetorical one: I would love to see a rival organization with real, professional leadership. A shame that Bessel Kok didn't win that election... Nevertheless, as long as Ivanchuk is a member of FIDE and breaks a FIDE rule, he should realize there is also a sanction.

Willempie wrote on 12/03/08 at 20:14:24:

OK guys, does it occur to you that all these rules and bans should not really be a matter of ideology, but of empirical assessment? When the wave of bans on smoking in the workplace and even in bars and restaurants swept through Europe some years ago, large parts of the public were hostile and ridiculed the idea. When the ban had been in effect for a couple of years however, most people realized they were better off without cigarette smoke all around them. People are conservative and sometimes they need a little experience with a new set of rules before they accept them.

So various level of bans, rules and regulations are tested in pilot projects, and if it works you keep it, if it doesn't work or has large unexpected side-effects, you scrap it. The same goes for speed limits: It is not really up to each individual which speed limit is best, it's an empirical question of which limit leads to the lowest number of deaths and severe injuries in traffic, while still offering acceptable travel times (for goods in particular).

If Ivanchuk was to be banned from chess by FIDE, who would be the next 'target' for FIDE? Plausible targets include:

Topalov (he tried to cause trouble in Elista and FIDE trialed him; they could retrial him with biased judges)

Radjabov (he was racist in an interview last year, FIDE could accuse him of not supporting "gens una sumus")

Morozevich (refused a doping test in Bled 2002 and swore at an arbiter; FIDE would have little difficulty banning him for many years)

Kamsky (FIDE could accuse him of trying to destroy the current World Championship Cycle by trying to beat FIDE at their own game last November)

If such bannings by FIDE began to occur, then there would be little hope for the chess world, as talented players would be kicked out on the basis of false allegations, some examples of which are listed above.

But first, it is necessary to know the result of Ivanchuk's trial, before these possibilities should be considered.

Stigma wrote on 12/03/08 at 14:38:48:


Like you I can never tell when drkodos is joking.  I myself am not.  

I don't advocate that anyone take up cocaine, whiskey, promiscuous sex, or whatever.  I merely advocate that as a matter of fact these are individual decisions and that the negative welfare effects of criminalizing these types of behavior vastly outweigh any good done by such a policy -- if indeed any good is done at all.  The cost to liberty; the burden on the police and the law courts; the encouragement given to organized crime; the loss of regulatory power and tax revenue; and so on, and so forth.

We live in a world where, for better or worse, the welfare and development of young people is entrusted to their parents.  It is my sincere hope that all parents will as responsible in raising their children as I tried to be in that role (my children are adults now).  But I do not regard the existence of some irresponsible or incapable parents as sufficient warrant for a society-wide prohibition on any of the various things that young people might do to hurt themselves.  In fact I think a very good indication of when social control is on the agenda is when its proponents start to talk about the supposed harm that any given thing inflicts upon children.

As for role models in sports, I am not sure what it is about taking a drink of whiskey or a snort of cocaine now and then that would make anyone a bad role model.  But in any case, it is not as if anyone in sports currently fails to do these things and much worse.  Let us be frank, sports exist to satisfy the demand for a particular form of entertainment, not to supply examples of sterling character.  In case anyone requires a tee-totaling, non-fornicating, non-gambling sports star for a role model, I presume that there exist a few of them.

Stigma wrote on 12/03/08 at 14:38:48:


My perspective is that substance control in chess, as in sport in general, is an attempt to advance a great social evil; and that while that may be a minority point of view, it is hardly offtopic to express it.

drkodos wrote on 12/03/08 at 14:28:19:


Hmm.
Jason Statham in Death Race
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=RU4TUCh-HwE ;
versus Usain Bolt.
No excuses for the long legged bloke in nice shoes.

The most even playing field possible is to allow anyone and everyone to do everything and anything.


Too even for most of you, because it does not allow any excuses when you fail.

up and comer wrote on 12/03/08 at 05:34:01:



Sure.  And it has probably happened more times than most of you would care to admit.    If my opponent beats me because he smoked a joint, so what?  Should I be just as ticked that he has more money and more free time that creates an inbalance and allows him to learn more than me which than also leads to his/her victory over me?

What if his parents loved him more and that makes him more stable?  Which is likely the case....

I am 100% fine with my opponent beating me because he used acid, speed, coffee, eye glasses, water, meatloaf, marijuana, cocaine, barbituates, or any eles the poor sod feels he needs.


Here, have a Snickers.  It really satisfies.


I drink coffee in the middle of games frequently.  Coffee is a diuretic.  Diuretics are banned.  Caffiene is absolutely an amphetamine.  Amphetamines are banned.  

Are cigarettes next?  They have amphetamines, and act as a stimulant. 


There is NO EVIDENCE of any thing being performance enhancing with regard to chess playing strength, and even if there were, I still support individual use of recreation OR performance enhancing substances, like food, chemicals, drugs, eye-glasses or anything else HUMAN BEINGS can think of, because man is part of nature and anything human beings make it also a part of nature, including an atomic bomb, or cocaine.

Too many people are too scared, selfish, and privy to ridiculous fears about people getting advantages. They are constantly worried that they are being short shifted, jobbed, and worked over instead of just keeping their eyes on their own pork chops.


All these drug policies are draconian legislation to control people and entrench the  powers of the state over the individual.  In this case, an organiation, a fictitious entity,FIDE,  trying to control the individual members of its International cabal.  Players are not even given voting rights or drafting rights in this legislation, so in that sense, any comparisons to fascism are mostly accurate, with regard to philosophy of governing styles.

In the US, the government is the largest supplier of drugs, both legal and illegal, while simultaneously posing and pretending that there is a "war on drugs."   And it is all just 100% bread and circuses that so many of you seem to eagerly lap up like pabum.


In chess, there are no alternative orgs to join.  No other places to move to, no freer states, so all these "if you do not like it you can go somewhere else" arguments are banal and fallacious.

Now, I am going to vaporize....


#30

I think that dopping tests are simply a mess in chess. also we should not forget the fact that chess is still not an olympic sport. I do not see any reason Ivanchuk to be banned from chess or his results to be annuled. If this happens I expect that the top GMs will protest against FIDE and its regime.
I also can not imagine that one of the top players will be banned... It remembers me when Kasparov was banned from FIDE after playing his match with Short...
I expect that a most of chess federations and professionals will defend Chukie.