I've seen some articles on this and I'm wondering if it is considered moral to use a stimulant like caffeine for a chess tournament? I'm obviously not talking about something illegal like meth (which would be really stupid even if it worked).
Personally, I think it's fine. After all, caffeine doesn't make you any smarter, it just makes you more awake and able to perform at your full capacity. For tournaments that have multiple matches per day (or if you slept poorly), it makes sense to try to equalize the playing field.
What are your thoughts on this?
I think it is an interesting issue as these issues are raised in more physical sports where benefits might be more obvious. Most poeple think coffee is fine but I think there has to be some line. Some people might believe any stimulant like amphetimines or cocaine give you an advantage. Would you allow them? Should there be testing?
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksThe question is whether the endurance of staying alert/awake is really part of the challenge of the tournament.
I think it is an interesting issue as these issues are raised in more physical sports where benefits might be more obvious. Most poeple think coffee is fine but I think there has to be some line. Some people might believe any stimulant like amphetimines or cocaine give you an advantage. Would you allow them? Should there be testing?
Caffeine, coke, amphetamines would only affect those aspects. In fact, if they perk give you too much energy you might be more apt to hurry your moves.
Of course, caffeine is just an example. There are many legal stimulants that may work as well if not better. For example, I heard that Angelica Root is a good stimulant. The discussion is not limited to caffeine.
Come to think of it, why limit it to stimulants at all? Maybe some chess players get hyperactive and too nervous. Thus a sedative like Ashwagandha would be more appropriate. I'll generalize the question to drugs of any kind to help one's chess performance. Consider the possibility that there may be a drug at some point that actually increases intelligence or perhaps the specific mental attributes that are most used in chess - not just alertness.
Although, this question could expanded forever to any possible type of aid. What about listening to sound patterns especially designed to put one in a mental state for peak alertness and perhaps even a special one for chess? What about a chess diet (eating kings for breakfast)? What about having GM tutors (and affording them!) or having had the opportunity to learn chess at a very early age? Why separate the pregame from the game when it all goes into the result? What about genes that give one better memory and abstract thinking? This is innate, but why is it so different from the rest? It clearly gives some an edge over others beyond simply the amount of work put in. This is some food for thought.
I think as long as everyone has the same opportunity to take a stimulant then it's fine. The issue is whether you have an unfair advantage, but if everyone can do it then there's no disadvantage. In all honesty I think that all athletes should be able to take whatever they want as long as it's not against the law. That includes a lot of substances that are currently banned in professional athletics.
Originally posted by icantwriteWouldn't this force all of them to take these performance enhancing substances (often with side effects) just to be able to compete? It seems that when one does it, he's in a way making a choice for everyone. It's like for technology companies. If one finds an innovation that makes a processor faster, the other has to do something similar or they won't be competitive enough to stay in business. The difference is that these are humans and the "innovations" might not be healthy at all.
I think as long as everyone has the same opportunity to take a stimulant then it's fine. The issue is whether you have an unfair advantage, but if everyone can do it then there's no disadvantage. In all honesty I think that all athletes should be able to take whatever they want as long as it's not against the law. That includes a lot of substances that are currently banned in professional athletics.
I wonder if Natrol's brainSpeed "nutritional supplement" for the brain is still being marketed? Some USCF members might remember USCF president Beatriz Marinello's plan to allow Natrol to be a sponsor for the USCF a few years ago. As soon as people heard about it, they raised holy hell, and the plan was dropped like a hot potato. I haven't kept up with Natrol, but I remember that it was a contentious topic at the time.