@ Michel83

Yes, good for you. I never said that you have to agree with majority. I don't do it all the time either. However, you can't let people who brake the rules to get away with it. And that is what I've been saying all the time.

You are totally off in the last part. It's the laws that define what is right and what is wrong. So the laws are right by default.

And yes, in a society where the majority thinks that death penalty is justified, the death penalty is right.

Yes, there are factors that you mentioned which makes people follow certain laws they don't really agree to, but if they do that, then they don't really bother them so much, do they? If the majority would be botherted by them so much, then they would protest and change them. Dictatorship or not. If the rules are silently accepted then this is an indication that they are not all that much interested to change the laws, but rather follow them. Thats what makes them valid.

And this is exactly how it is with doping controls. Players may not like them, but they don't bother them so much that they would protest about it, and force FIDE to change it. And that is the whole point. The majority is not all that bothered by doping test, so the rules are valid. And few individuals who doesn't follow them get punished.

If I make another comparison from real life. The majority of drivers in my country may think that 130 km/h speed limit on the highway is too restrictive (lets say that they do). It could as well be 150 km/h. Yet nobody protests about this. Now I drive 135 km/h and get a ticket for speeding, or even better, I don't stop at all because I feel the law is stupid. And like I said the majority of people are on my side - they think it is stupid for me to get a fine for driving 5 km/h too fast.

So what now? Should the police ignore the law and not punish me just because the majority thinks that I did nothing wrong?

Now apply that situation to Ivanchuk's case. It's the same thing.

(sorry for the typing errors)

@me : Are you really saying that Ivanchuk belongs in asylum for lunatics? .
Would you put such a bird in a small cage?
I dont buy that , you love chess : you love Chucky.
If you hate Chucky enough to lock him down then you have envy in your veins.
Asylums are not funny, watch your back!

Let's gather votes to ban "me" from chess. I am sure we can find a rule to justify it. ;-)

@ me

p.s. Jokes aside, you need to ask yourself who made the rules and if they make sense - blindly following them can be dangerous.

There was a famous psychological experiment many years ago, where participants were invited to a "medical experiment". In it, they were asked to push a button administrating electrical shocks to a poor soul (an actor who was in on the experiment) causing the guy to scream with pain. Each time the participants felt bad and wanted to stop pressing the button, a "doctor" in a white coat would tell them everything was fine and asked to keep going. In the documentary I saw, every participant except one "followed the rules" and kept pressing the button. If the experiment was real, the guy would have been cooked to death.

me, I think there's one fundamental flaw in your reasoning: We're not talking about a player XY here, we're talking about Ivanchuk, who is a very special person. Chess means EVERYTHING to him. Chess is his life. And he just suffered one of the greatest disappointments of his career. According to eye-witnesses he was completely out of his mind. He was kicking pillars. He was banging his fists on tables. He was screaming like a savage beast in the bathroom.
This has nothing to do with being a bad loser. These are uncontrollable emotions. And at this very moment someone demands a urine sample from him. Come on...

The FIDE anti-doping policy is a joke & a disgrace! It & its enforcement is the result the chess SS and various Einsatzgruppen. Is there a performance enhancing drug for chessplayers? Ethanol does not work.

-What I said was that someone can protest _by breaking_ the rules, not protest after breaking the rules.
-Also, your comment: "If Ivanchuk acts like a spoiled brat after losing a game, then this is his problem", clearly shows you don't know Ivanchuk at all. Even in front of a very strict judge, he could claim that he was too depressed immediately after his loss and that because of his difficult psychological situation he was unable to perform the test. I think he would find many witnesses to support this view. After all, every player knows him.

@christos
I'm afraid no judge in a sports court of law will bend to the argument that a 'sportsman' was too depressed to take a doping test. And I wouldn't count to much on fellow players either. Too many of them will listen to the sound of olympic money.
A few years ago, doping tests were introduced in the Dutch championship. In another championship (or the same, I can't remember), a computer program was allowed to compete. There were some protests, but the majority of the competitors didn't mind to play on both occasions. As I recall, some weren?Ǭ¥t even ashamed to give the money argument for agreeing. So, how much support you really expect of Ivanchuk?Ǭ¥s colleagues?
Let's do the man right, he was not 'depressed', he was dead right. He should not get a fine as a well-meaning Michel83 suggests; no compromises, just abolish this ridiculous rule. Precedent? Fischer in Varna, after that, no one for over 40 years dared to re-introduce the 30-move draw rule. (But that's another discussion.)

@me: "You have to protest when something is announced, not when you get caught!"

It's never too late to protest. There is no rule - anywhere - that says when to protest and when not. (I think most lawyers would be jobless if it was impossible to protest when you get caught.) At least not in any well-functioning democracy. Admittedly, FIDE is not exactly a well-functioning democracy ...

@me
First, using an excessive number of exclamation marks doesn't make you more right.
Secondly, who got caught at the doping controls? I haven't heard of anyone.
Thirdly, just imagine you're living in an dictatorship. You're trying to come by, and live your live, knowing you can't change much. Then, suddenly, you're told you're one of the elected to shake the dictators hand (oops, no pun intended). This is going to far for you, so you refuse, whatever the consequences may be.
Then some smart guy says you're a hypocrite, you should have emigrated way before. Sounds familiar?

Lawyers have nothing to do with justice and what is right.

Doping should be allowed in all sports. I am serious.
In chess especially drugs, including alcohol, have always been around. Alekhine, Tal, and Kholmov, to name but a few, they all played great games on dope.

There must be a non dramatic solution for this , like a small fine for Chucky.
By the way , i cant believe that this is the only thing that prevents chess for becoming an olimpic sport.

The following top players have declared war on FIDE:

Ivanchuk
Shirov
Carlsen
Kogan

To name just a few of thousands!

It's time. Time for a change of leadership. Time for a fair, unbiased world championship cycle. Time for equality in the chess word. It's time.

LOL

Ivanchuk didn't declare anything.
Shirov just critisized FIDE like many times before - no war declaration.
Carlsen just droped out of Grand Prix. No war declaration here either.
Kogan - who???

Let's face it, chess players are just too childish and egoistic to unite and make a difference. On their own they aren't capable of organizing one match without bickering, not to mention the whole cycle.
So basically they have exactly what they deserve - they have an organization called FIDE.

What I have been saying is that you can let somebody get away when the rules are wrong. Eg I would claim to let somebody get away with it when the rule says "when you wear a blue shirt you should get stoned to death", because the rule and the consequence are both wrong.
I have to add though that letting that person get away also has to lead to a change of the rules as a consequence, like saying "We let Ivanchuk get away but as a consequence out of that we are changing the Anti-Doping-Rules."

But we already had that.

But please don't answer to this post of mine anymore, alright? Because otherwise we'll go on like this for weeks. You seem to like discussion as much as I do, but actually I have stuff to do and going online for seeing whether you answered is not really helping me. ;)

What I have been saying is that you can let somebody get away when the rules are wrong. Eg I would claim to let somebody get away with it when the rule says "when you wear a blue shirt you should get stoned to death", because the rule and the consequence are both wrong.
I have to add though that letting that person get away also has to lead to a change of the rules as a consequence, like saying "We let Ivanchuk get away but as a consequence out of that mess we are changing the Anti-Doping-Rules."

But we already had that.

But please don't answer to this post of mine anymore, alright? Because otherwise we'll go on like this for weeks. You seem to like discussion as much as I do, but actually I have stuff to do and going online for seeing whether you answered is not really helping me. ;)

Soory, but it just doesn't (and can't) work this way. You would let Ivanchuk go because YOU think that doping law is stupid, but you would fine me because YOU think the law is good. But of course you are just one of many people, so we should ask everybody what they think about Ivanchuk's and my case. Ant then what? We are at majority again, or how it is decided? Remember that my premise was that the majority feels that I did nothing wrong. So I would get away too, regardless what you think. It just can't work this way.

I think it is you who wants utopia.

There are rules, and there are consequences for breaking them. It's that simple.

I have my own mind and I don't have to agree with what majority thinks; especially since I am not a politician who got elected by that majority. I do not owe the majority anything.
If you support any rule that majority agreed on and support the resulting consequences and think they are "right", it is your business, I don't.
If you support torture in a country where majority supports that and think torture is right because majority supports it, it is your business, I don't.
I don't have to support what majority thinks. I am an individual. Call me naive if you want, it won't change my mind, just as I won't change your mind.

Good Night now.

Re: Richard D. Stoy. Those troops were called Einsatzkommandos, they often included more "zealous" foreigners than German servicemen as such. I think that's a bit too much to compare them with FIDE apparatchiks whatever the latters' faults real or imagined may be.

Law defines what is right and what is wrong? I disagree.
Laws defines what is allowed and what is not allowed. The terms "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with Law, humans existed before "Law" was invented, so "right" and "wrong" have to do something with my own values. From a moral point of view, only me myself can define what I think is right and wrong in my world.
And in a country where torture is allowed by Law I would still think it is wrong to torture and not support it.

I like to use my own head and not to follow anything that the Law books of my respective country say.
In a society in which the majority supports a war or a death penalty it doesn't mean I have to support it. You seem to say that you yourself will support any existing Law and the consequences resulting out of it simply because the Law exists.

If in a country there is a Law pro torture that doesn't exist I have to SUPPORT torture. Yet you seem to support anything that is a Law. The emphasis is on the word SUPPORT.

By the way, there have been cases where the majority DID protest against an existing Law and it didn't change anything.

So, to get back to Ivanchuk, that's the difference:
I think the Anti Doping Laws are wrong, so I think the consequences resulting out of it are wrong and that's why I don't support the consequences, no matter whether the players protested against it beforehand or not.
You think the Anti Doping Laws are wrong (you stated that before), but since they are existing you support their consequences.

I propose to you to rest that now, since we are far far away from each other not only in the Ivanchuk case but in our general views.
I wish you a good night nevertheless and let's wait and see what will happen in that Ivanchuk case.

Just answer me one more thing:

How is my (fictional) case with speeding any different than Ivanchuk's case?

The difference is that I agree with your fictional speeding case and support speeding Laws. ;)

But for example if you would have made the same fictional case about a Law I disagree with,eg the Death Penalty, then I would also disagree with the consequences and wouldn't support it.
So in this Ivanchuk case I think both the Law and the officially defined consequences are wrong, so I do not support the consequences (although I already agreed with you that the player could have gotten their ass up a bit earlier).

Thanks for the discussion anyway, it is always interesting getting to know "opposing" point of views.

@ me

And "living with the consequences" doesn't mean that the consequences are right, as you claim.
So if I would live in a dictatorship and would break a bad Law (eg...write a critical article about the governement) and then would go to prison, it doesn't mean that it is right I go to prison. If I get stoned to death because I had pre-marital sex it doesn't mean it is right that I get stoned to death because "I knew the Law and now I have to live with the consequences".
But people like you would probably also me it is right I get a prison penalty or get stoned to death because I knew the Law and it's my problem if I broke it and now I have to live with the consequences.

Ah anway, sorry for starting again. And this is not about Ivanchuk anyway, it's off topic, sorry for that. I am just in awe with your viewpoints; I guess politically, spirtitually and in our view on human life we are very very far away from each other.
Goodbye.

You are comparing Ivanchuk's case with death penalties? Hmm, maybe you are for asylum too :)

OK, lets say that you would live in a country where all those things are forbiden and punishable. It is of course your own decision if you are going to obay or not, but you will know what awaits you if you will brake the rules and get caught. So it was your own decision to brake the rules and take the risk of being caught. You will just have to face the consequences of your actions, won't you? Regardless what you think about the rules.

It's same with Ivanchuk. He is not that ignorant to not know what are the cosequences of declining the doping test. He took the risk, and now he should face the consequences.

And that is all there is to it.

@ me

I was NOT comparing death penalty to Ivanchuk case, I used it as an example for your way of thinking that "everybody who breaks a rule has to live with the consequences" and that basically it seems to be from your posts you would SUPPORT the consequences whenever somebody breaks a rule. So I wondered that if in a dictatorship I broke a bad Law and would get the death penalty you would also say "it is ok he get the death penalty because he broke a Law and knew the consequences.

I DID write "this is not about Ivanchuk" but a more general discussion about the logic you are using that it is RIGHT that when somebody breaks a Law, even one that is wrong, has to be punished following the Law.

About this sentence:
"You are comparing Ivanchuk?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s case with death penalties? Hmm, maybe you are for asylum too :D "
I can only quote yourself:
"Getting personal when you run out of arguments, heh?"
But I suppose that in your world it is totally ok when YOU insult somebody else.

(I quoted you wrongly: You used a :) and not a :D , I confused them. And don't tell me you were just joking, I'm not that stupid...)

The laws represent what the majority of people think it is right. True or false?

If the majority is against the existing rules, they stand up and change the rules. True or false?

Majority of players (silently) accepted the doping controls when they were introduced. True or false?

One's opinion, or the opinion of minority, has no efect on the rules. True or false?

1.
False.
In a dictatorship they don't.
In a democracy often the parliament and the governement make rules that the majority is against (and public polls to decide over Laws are not done often).

2.
False.
Most people like their comfort, their greed and their own safety and mostly will not stand up against something, both in a democracy and in a dictatorship (although in the second system you can add "fear" as a factor).

3.
True.
And that's where I agree with you, I hate it when people shut up out of comfort.
But that doesn't make the Law or the consequences right and it doesn't mean they are not allowed to change their opinion (Shirov spoke up now). You can't say "Only because somebody did shut up when the Law about stoning to death was made now it is perfectly acceptable if she gets stoned to death and I support it."

4.
True.
So what? Does that mean the rules and consequences are right?
To me it seems you agree with any exisiting rule and the consequence following out of it. But only because the majority accepts "death penalty", out of comfort or fear or both, it doesn't mean that I have to accept death penalty and think it is
right or support it.

For me, a wrong Law can't lead to a right consequence.

And when I think a Law is wrong then I won't support the consequence. But you ARE supporting the consequence; that why I made the example of death penalty: Following you, if majority thinks stoning to death is right, you will agree with it and support it, because majority said it. Following you torture and slavery is right if only the majority agrees on it. Following you you accept, and more importantly, SUPPORT ANY consequence from a existing Law just because the Law exists.
At least that is how I understand you.
(and again, no I am not comparing that to the Ivanchuk case, I am talking about the logic you use)

I think the points you make would work in an utopia; but reality is not an utopia. No, the Laws being made often do not express the will of majority. No, most people don't stand up against Laws they disagree with.

And by the way, it is doubtable that FIDE is a democracy at all. And in a dictatorship the Laws surely do not reflect the will of the majority. And as said even in most democracy I doubt they do, but I don't think FIDE is much of a democracy.

"I stand by my words:
IF he can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t calm down (after losing a game) to a normal state in an hour, then his place is in asylum for lunatics. And the same applies for all of you, and me.

It is NOT normal that you can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t be approached by anybody. And don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t give me that crap about emotions."

Wow.
If you say he should be banned because he canb't calm down that is one thing; I disagree, but o.k, that's fair enough.
But you are saying everybody who is different from the norm of society (what is normal anyway and who decides over that?) should get locked away in an asylum.
Well, I rest my case in this case; there's nothing I could say about such a point of view.

And me myself do not care about chess being recognized as serious. Let's face it, "recognized as serious" is just another expression for "money money money".

But anyway, as said, no need to discuss further. Have a good day.

Peter Leko and Arshak Petrosian are both pissed about the new FIDE WCH system.

Here You find a long interview with them.
http://www.origo.hu/sport/sakk/20081204-leko-peter-es-arshak-petroszjan-...

"?¢‚Ǩ?ìIn your everyday life do you chose which laws you follow and which don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t??¢‚Ǩ?

Yes.

As much as it is possible;"

We all brake the rules and laws sometimes. Holwever if we get caught we have to live with the consequences. Or don't we???

I stand by my words:
IF he can't calm down (after losing a game) to a normal state in an hour, then his place is in asylum for lunatics. And the same applies for all of you, and me.

It is NOT normal that you can't be approached by anybody. And don't give me that crap about emotions.

Yes, chess is not serious sport. Tell me one other sport where players can just simply refuse to play in a specific country. Or tell me in which sport the rules of competition get changed, while the competition is already running. Or how about a sport where a player can just decide whether he will go to the doping test, or he will decline because he is too emotional to do it. You call that serious??? Please, give me a break.
And as long it is going to be that way, and as long as there going to be people who even defend players for being unprofessional and ignore the rules, chess won't be serious sport/game/whatever. And then people wonder why there is no money in chess. First you need order and professionalism, then the money will come.

I can't quit chess, because I have never been in chess. When I play I can allow myself takebacks (if my opponent agrees), I can play without clocks, I don't have to come to the game punctually (in fact I don't even have to come at all), I can leave the king in check, I can ignore en passant rule, I can talk on a mobile during the game, etc.

If he can't come down to the normal state in an hour then his place is in asylum for lunatics.

And from your statement I see that Ivanchuk is excused from all of this, but some other player is not.

I'm shocked how many people here think that Ivanchuk deserves privileges just because he is ivanchuk. And i'm also shocked that many people think that you can just chose which rules should be followed and which not. In your everyday life do you chose which laws you follow and which don't?

me: "In my first post I said that ivanchuk would get banned in any serious sport. Unfortunatelly chess is not serious, and if it continues this way it will never be."

I am glad chess is not serious enough for you. And, like almost everybody, I would prefer _you_ to quit chess, rather than Ivannchuk.

Getting personal when you run out of arguments, heh?

I am getting personal? Maybe you didn't understand what YOU said.

"Chess is not serious" is a grave insult against all chessplayers. In the context of this argument, it is obvious that you imply everyone who disagrees with you is "not serious". I will only note that most people here express a different opinion than you, but this is not really important. You were the one to replace arguments with aphorisms.

I only said I would be happy if you left, which is not an insult, just a wish.

"If he can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t come down to the normal state in an hour then his place is in asylum for lunatics."

Ah, me, you lack romanticism... Isn't it the crazy guys who make life interesting?

@ me

"In your everyday life do you chose which laws you follow and which don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t?"

Yes.

As much as it is possible; unfortunately often we sell our soul.
I try not to blindly follow any Law that an authority imposes on me.

And I am allowed to change my opinion at any time (and yes, I know Ivanchuk didn't refuse out of protest, I'm talking more generally now); following you once I agree with something I am stripped off any right to protest. So following you, when a Law is being made and I agreed on it (or at least kept silent), I'm never again allowed to disagree with it.

And no, Ivanchuk doesn't deserve priviliges, although I'm a fan of his. Any other player shouldn't get banned for the same thing either.

But anyway, the Law has to be changed, just like FIDE (who often broke is own rules), no matter what happens with Ivanchuk.

And chess is no "serious sport"; it is serious, but no sport.

And your comment about the "luncatics asylum", besides being disrespectful and insulting, says a lot about how you think about humans and the world, no matter whether you think he should get banned or not. What you are actually saying is that everybody who is emotionally or mentally different or reacts differently from what society considers normal/the norm ("everbody has to be able to calm down in 1 hour") should get locked away in a lunatics asylum.
Sorry "me", but you are scary.

Entao amigos! Nao acredito que vao bannir Ivanchuk do xadrez! ele ?ɬ© o bom que resta do melhor xadrez do mundo ( Kasparov, Karpov...) Good old days!!

Fide doping policy is too stupid for chess players. Chessplayers will never get the chance to participate in the Olympic games, which was why these superfluous doping tests were accepted. Ivanchuk is fully right! Someone had to do the job. Great he did it.

Please stop all this talk how Ivanchuk refused the doping test out of protest. That is simply not true. He just had a period of insanity after losing the last game and couldn't be aproached by anybody. It's good that he didn't punch one of the officials who tried to get him to the doping room.

Don't try to make him some hero who is fignthing against FIDE and doping tests. He was just very unprofesional and a very bad loser.

Besides, how long does a normal person need to calm down and start functioning again?

If Ivanchuk would go to the doping room after half an hour, one hour, or even after two hours, everything would be fine. But he didn't, did he?

Yes, he fully deserves the ban for this kind of behaviour. Let some other superstar in some other sport try this. You'll see what would happen to him.

Richard, I understand your anger, but please leave the SS and Einsatzgruppen out of this.

"Now that one of their colegues broke the rules it is too late to protest about how silly the rules are. "

What silliness.

Ever here of change?

You can change the rules yes, but not backwards. Ivanchuk broke the rules that are valid.

well in this case lets hope that FIDE does what they are good at and completely ignore the rule they made themselves. :) be a bit careful when you use both "can" and "not" in the same sentence when you talk about FIDE.

Yes, that is only hope Ivanchuk has.

In my first post I said that ivanchuk would get banned in any serious sport. Unfortunatelly chess is not serious, and if it continues this way it will never be.

I agree that doping tests in chess are silly (they don't even know for what substances should they be tested for). But the problem is that nobody said anything about the doping controls when they were first introduced. The players just accepted them. Now that one of their colegues broke the rules it is too late to protest about how silly the rules are. They should make a statement against doping tests when they were first introduced and ask FIDE to reconsider that decision. Now it's too late (at least for Ivanchuk's case). He broke the rules that were silently accepted by all.

Now you can twist the words back and forth, but this is the fact: Ivanchuk broke the rules that were (silently) accepted by all. And he didn't even do it out of protest, he just simply ignored the officials that were trying to get him into the doping room. That is inexcusable for a professional.

@Frits Fritschy:
It seems like Ivanchuk can count on at least one of his fellow players at the top level, namely Shirov, who already wrote an open letter today.

I don't understand why people think that Ivanchuk might be penalized for two years. To my understanding point 6.4 refers to the violation Ivanchuk has made. This point says that three (3) months to one (1) year of ineligibility shall be given (if it is the first time when this particular violation occurs).

However, I think Ivanchuk should be punished for this because otherwise FIDE anti doping code will look like a joke. If there is a rule then this rule should be taken into an account. I think it was one of the most brutal ways to avoid doping control.

@christos
For once, I would love to be wrong.

Of course Ivanchuk will not be banned. And of course I would be banned in the same situation. That's life!

"Wrong comparison between Fisher and Ivanchuk"

And where exactly did I do that?

here:
?Ǭ® In that respect Fischer was very straightforward - if there was something he didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t like, he just didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t show up, period?Ǭ®

@val : ?Ǭ®sorry, repeat to remove a lapsus manus?Ǭ®.
I dont get it , what is this supose to mean .What is your xcuse for double posting?

I repeat my question:

Where did I make comparison between Ivanchuk and Fischer?

@Manu. Improper spelling of the words: "occasionally behaving". Sorry.

The comparison is tacit , but still in the case you can't find it: the remark about Fisher is not true.
Fisher fighted for his rights also during tournaments.
Anyway, you should read the last open letter of Shirov.

Spassky recently said, he liked Ivanchuk best also for being "a bit crazy". So let Chucky go on occassionally behave "a bit crazy" making our lives even more worth living. I think though that FIDE might eventually get him banned if only for the sake of joining the Olympics. As ABBA's hit goes: " Money, money, money!" etc, etc.

sorry, repeat to remove a lapsus manus. Spassky recently said, he liked Ivanchuk best also for being "a bit crazy". So let Chucky go on occasionally behaving "a bit crazy" making our lives even more worth living. I think though that FIDE might eventually get him banned if only for the sake of joining the Olympics.. As ABBA's hit goes: "Money, money, money!" etc, etc.

@ Michel:

Deal ;)

1) No, but this changes nothing in this case.

2) Yes, he should be punished according to the rules. And I believe it is 2 years ban in such cases.

If he was the only one to protest before the tournament, it still wouldn't change anything. If majority of players would be against doping controls then they should just announce to boycott. This would force FIDE to change the rules, or the Olympiad would be held with very few participants.

If you don't want to play by the rules, don't play. In that respect Fischer was very straightforward - if there was something he didn't like, he just didn't show up, period. Of course this is madness if there is only one player that is unsatisfied with conditions, but if majority of players are against something, then that is completely different.

My refusal in 2004 was a personal protest against the assumption that I was guilty of using performance enhancing drugs, and that I was required to take a test to 'prove' that I was innocent.
The punishment that I received (loss of points from the team total), was in fact worse than a 2 year suspension. I would have stood down from chess for 2 years, as it was a personal punishment for a personal decision (although I did have the support of my team). Instead the tribunal enforced a collective punishment on my team mates by removing my points from our final standings. It is important to note that despite the ruling of the tribunal, my games from that event were rated by FIDE (I gained 40 points btw), so in effect I received no personal punishment at all, while my team did.

@me:
Wrong comparison between Fisher and Ivanchuk .And not true at all, for example : Fisher did show up to the match with Spassky and forced a lot of changes .
Chess is a game , not a sport .And Grand Master Ivanchuk is one of the finest examples of sportmanship (or gamemanship) that we have , we cannot sacrifice him just to fit into something we dont belong.
Doping rules simply dont aply to the game of chess ,we should learn from this experience and change this rules.
Understand that Ivanchuk cannot be suspended for 2 years , it simple wont happen.

1) My opinion is that "Don't play if you can't play by the rules."

2) No if just one player protested, then FIDE wouldn't do anything (it's the same in any sport or any other aspect of life). But if the majority of players feel that doping is unnecesarry then they can make a point. Like I said, and correct me if I'm wrong, nobody protested about doping controls in any way before. Hence they silently agreed to them. Also by participating in the Olympiad, all players agreed that they have to come punctually to the start of the games, that they wont draw befre move 30, that they will take doping tests, etc.

Is that, or is that not true?

One player broke the rules, and now he should be punished according to the rules (2 year ban). There can't be any "if's" and "but's" here.

We all know that FIDE is no model organization, but players are responsible for the situation also. More than you think. If they want to earn like professionals, then they have to act like professionals also.

@ chessgirl

"Of course I don?Ǭ¥t want Ivanchuk to be banned from tournaments for two years, but I just don?Ǭ¥t like seeing that some people are horrified by the fact that HE should be banned and not just another guy, in this case they would consider it completely fair. OK, discrimination is a reality, but it?Ǭ¥s a reality that I don?Ǭ¥t like and against which I will fight, sorry if you don?Ǭ¥t like it."

O.k., thanks for clarifying; and I agree on what you say above.
The reason why I misinterpreted your use of the word "ban" by the way was because you wrote that you agree with everything user "me" wrote and he actually says in his posts he wants Ivanchuk to be banned for two years; this is why I assumed you agree with him.

Oh, and: Come on, don't YOU interprete my words; I merely said that unfortunately discrimination is a reality, I never said that I liked it. I'm happy if you fight discrimination and I'd be happy to fight discrimination side by side with you! Deal? ;)

@ me

I understand your points, but they are too "Law-Following" in my opinion. But I guess from my side there is no more need to discuss with you, because I suppose we disagreeingly understand each other's points, so I will leave it.

Just a few questions about Doping Tests in general, NOT about the Ivanchuk case; just interested in your opinion:

1. Do you think Doping Test should be done in Chess, yes or no?

2. If yes, do you think that if a player refuses the test he should be banned for 2 years? I know this is the actual rule, but in some way my question is: Do you think the "2-year-rule" is absolutely fine and appropriate or do you think it should be changed to something "softer", eg a shorter ban or a money fine or something else ?

Because I understood by now that in that specific case you think Ivanchuk should be banned, because he didn't protest beforehand.
But you didn't tell us your opinion about Doping Tests in Chess and the punishement going with it in general!
If Ivanchuk would have protested BEFORE the tournament, would you have supported him or not? What's your general opinion in that matter?

@ me

And a second question:
You tell us about the right way to protest in a democracy.

First of all, there is no objective rule how to protest in a democracy. Yes, you can make a strike out of the sudden. No Law forbids that. Saying "that's the way you should protest in a democracy" is kind of an undemocratic thing to say in itself.

Secondly, and more importantly, you talk about democracy, but do you seriously think FIDE is a democracy?

The picture your drawing is too naive in my opinion, because you are talking about democratic procedure in a system that is totally undemocratic. Let's imagine it:
Ivanchuk would protest against doping test in advance. Would FIDE cancel their Doping tests because of that? No.
Ivanchuk wouldn't play- would FIDE cancel their doping tests because of that? No.

FIDE makes the Doping tests so that they can be recognized as olympic sport so that they can make more money. They wouldn't care much about whether Ivanchuk would protest or not.

The result of you democratic procedure would have been, that Ivanchuk, if he doesn't want to do a Doping test, could have never played a game again, because FIDE wouldn't have changed the rules. So as a result of your democratic procedure we would have had: "Ivanchuk stops his chess career."
It's not Ivanchuk who is the problem, but FIDE.
How does your democratic procedure work in a dictatorship? It doesn't work...

@ Michel83

When I said "all you people" I meant "all the people who are saying that Chuky should get away with it", it doesn?Ǭ¥t necessarily mean "all the people present in this forum", if you took it that way I?Ǭ¥m sorry but I don?Ǭ¥t think it was the only possible interpretation of my words, and I was referring to Manu & co. Personally I don?Ǭ¥t agree with all the doping paraphernalia, as I don?Ǭ¥t with most of FIDE?Ǭ¥s iniciatives, but I think that if chess players decided to protest against this BEFORE a tournament I could agree with them, not if they just decide to skip it because they lost a game.
On the other hand, when I said "banned", I meant all that "take their points off the team?Ǭ¥s score" process, at least just to be fair, I?Ǭ¥m sorry if I used the incorrect word but English is just my third language.
Of course I don?Ǭ¥t want Ivanchuk to be banned from tournaments for two years, but I just don?Ǭ¥t like seeing that some people are horrified by the fact that HE should be banned and not just another guy, in this case they would consider it completely fair. OK, discrimination is a reality, but it?Ǭ¥s a reality that I don?Ǭ¥t like and against which I will fight, sorry if you don?Ǭ¥t like it.

"According to the final report on ChessBase Ivanchuk refused to undergo a doping test, but FIDE decided not to punish him and the Ukrainian team anyway. Of course doping tests in chess are silly, but it's even more ridiculous when an Austrian amateur gets a 2-year ban for refusing a doping test (an unannounced one at her home no less, I mentioned this here on the Ninja boards a while ago), while in the case of a world class player the doping regulations are simply ignored. If FIDE pardons Ivanchuk, the same should be done for other players who were already banned for the same offense."

http://www.chessninja.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1381...

He, he, here is something for you who advocate that Ivanchuk should be punished by only deleting his results.

Because Ukraine will lose all Ivanchuk's point, this means that the tie-breakers will change for other teams too. Hence Hungary will beat USA on tie-breaks now, and will get the bronze medal!

Now how exactly was ivanchuk punished by this??? He should get banned.

@ me

I already know this and of course that would be wrong.
I am against those doping tests in general, but if you wanna punish him he could also just get a fine, a high one if you want.
Do you seriously think that a 2-year-ban is appropriate when a chess player rejects a doping test? Wouldn't paying money do?
And please do not answer me "Those are the rules", I am not asking about the rules but about your personal opinion.

A quick glance at Ivanchuk's game from that day would have been sufficient to realize that he couldn't have taken anything useful.

Okay, let's put some effort in this.
I will be quoting from the page 'Denksport en doping' (mental sports and doping) from the Dutch doping authority NeCeDo(http://www.dopingautoriteit.nl/campagnes/publicaties/documenten/denkspor...). My comments are in brackets. Excuse me if my translation is not perfect.
In the first paragraph it becomes clear that investigations in this matter were only persued because ratification of the anti-doping convention obliged sport unions to have anti-doping regulations.
"The mental sports are up till now exempted from [the anti-doping convention] because the relevance isn't clear... Playing mental sports have very different demands on the human functioning as other sports... Experts [from the world of mental sports] say that use of substances with the aim to improve capabilities only happens sporadically... Mental sports should rightly have a special position within doping regulations. The general opinion is that these substances do more harm than good (as I stated earlier)... Based on proven effects it can be accepted that improving is possible (up till now, the NeCeBo is saying: they are not using anything, but we could give them some advise!)... As far as is known, it is not possible to improve mental sport capabilities in a direct way. It is possible to improve separated mental functions... but judgments on [complex tasks as the execution of mental sports] are based on suppositions, because of the absence of knowledge about the relation between cognitive processes and prestations in mental sports (when you don't know how chessplayers think, you don't know what mental processes you should try to influence with doping)... Effects of pharmacological substances on cognitive functions are small (after stating that it's not even known which functions should be influenced)... [The NeCeDo] has made a list of substances with which it might be possible to influence performances in mental sports. The formulation is broad because we don't want to exclude in advance any substances... [In the conclusions:] It is to be recommended that mind sport organisations formally ban doping..."
This really beats me. Substances have unknown, maybe contraproductive side-effects, their effects on cognitive functions are small and no one knows which functions should be influenced. But still, we should forbid just any substance that might have influence! Well, the Necedo (and similar organisations in other countries) also depends on government money and it would not be wise to say that any action is useless...
Need I say more?

But WHO was banned? I already posted above that Shaun Press and Bobby Miller, who refused to take a doping test in the Calvia Olympiad 2004 on general principle, were punished by having their personal points reduced from their teams?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ totals. That was it. Perhaps they should reduce Ukraine's points in this Olympiad as well. After all they didn't win a medal, even though their 1st board player was doped. So it is not such a big deal.

@ Frits

Thanks for the clarification; I agree with what you say about "what came first" with the money and I agree it's a shame.
Nevertheless it would be interesting me if theoretically you could gain an advantage in chess through forbidden substances; but since I don't know much about medicine I can't say much about this.
Personally I think the physical aspect of professional chess is underrated; people always think it is all about the brain. But a 2 weeks tournament is pretty stressful for the body too, players have to keep fit, so it might possible to dope the body. In know the advantage gained is smaller than in other sports, so doping in chess is not really an issue (= I am against doping tests too), I am kicking around my thoughts a bit.

@ chessgirl

Of course a famous chess player will always have a bonus and yes, that's discrimination. Unfortunately that happens everywhere in society, fame and money give you an advantage.
But to my knowledge, no other player has been banned for refusing the doping control; as Christos points out Press and Miller got their personal points reduced from their team points, but there was no ban. And do you seriously think a 2 year ban for a chess player refusing a doping test would be appropriate?

Anyway; I think your comment ignores a bit the discussion going on here, it is not only about Chuky (and yes, I am aware he probably wasn't protesting about doping tests, but just being annoyed), but about doping tests in chess in general.
I'd be interested in your opinion:
Do you think that doping tests in chess make sense at all? As Frits pointed out in his comments doping tests in chess probably aren't there because people worry about doping (and it's at least discussable if doping in chess is possible at all), but because they worry about money (if chess gets recognized as olympic sport there will be much more money, but for this getting this recognition and money you need doping tests- THAT'S WHY doping test got introduced: Money.).

What disturbs me about your comment is that there is a rule that might be completely ridiculous and you just say "let's follow the rule and ban everybody who doesn't" without questioning the rule itself. So, in your opinion, we should just follow ANY rule that FIDE is doing? And as said, the doping rule is mainly there for money and not because people worry about doping.
No offense intended, but maybe you can clarify.

By the way, you said
"Many players have already been banned for not wanting to pass the doping control, and OF COURSE, according to all you people, their professional rights are not as important as Chucky?Ǭ¥s."

Thanks for accusing us all ("all you people") of discrimination but can you please quote me one sentence of me or other people on this board where was said that his rights are more important than others? I don't like to be called discriminative, so I eagerly wait for you to point out where I said that.
This discussion is not about Chuky, it is about doping tests in general.

@chessgirl
Those other players who were banned for not wanting to pass the doping control, why did they refuse? Let's asume at least some of them had nothing to hide, but refused on principle. Wouldn't they be glad when a top level player also takes the risk of being banned?

-I have never met Ivanchuk. I know some things about his character from other people describing him in interviews and from watching some of his interviews in video. I think Ivanchuk is a very special case, but I will not comment further.
-In order to increase their concentration or playing ability, chess players can consume many different things. Honey, chocolate, caffeine, vitamins come to mind. These substances are not forbidden for other athletes, and I don't think they could be forbidden for chess players. On the other hand, if they are searching for something like anabolic steroids, they could make him take the test later or the next day when he had calmed down. After all, traces of these substances remain for a long time, and WADA make tests to athletes even during training sessions, not only immediately after the games.

ah yes, caffeine is actually not on the doping list anymore (but it was).

but its easy to just think of something else...people have medecins etc., which might affect your running abilities but probably not your chess skills. it seems to me that to have a relevant list of forbidden substances for chessplayers, you need a lot of research on the subject.

or well, I guess one part of it is to have a "clean" sport as well. so people who smoke a joint before the chess game (although that probably is a handicap) can get disqualified because they are bad role models. or something like that. (not because it breakes the law (if it does) - you dont get disqualified for having jaywalked the day before the match :) ). I think that might actually be the important part of becoming an olympic sport, they want it black on white that chess players arent doing drugs.

I totally agree with "me" and everything he said. If Chucky wants to skip the doping test because he can?Ǭ¥t take a loss, let him do it, HOW CAN WE LIVE WITHOUT HIM FOR TWO YEARS! So if he loses to a 2500 player and insults him in a moment of anger some people will say "but oh my God, it was nothing physical! The poor guy was so frustrated! Don?Ǭ¥t ban him!" Many players have already been banned for not wanting to pass the doping control, and OF COURSE, according to all you people, their professional rights are not as important as Chucky?Ǭ¥s. That, in my country, is called discriminating, and it?Ǭ¥s not something nice.

well there is probably enough money for him to win in rapid and blitz tournaments that he doesnt have to worry about making a living. he hasnt been doing too bad at blitz lately.

"And by the way, seems like you don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know Ivanchuk at all - yes, he is a great and very interesting player, but he is hardly a ?¢‚Ǩ?ìnice chap?¢‚Ǩ? "

I dont know ivanchuk at all, but when you claim something like that, it would be interesting to know how you know him? how many times have you met him?

anyway I dont think it is wrong us the "anarchy" method, as you call it, not going about the matter in a democratic way. it depends completely upon the situation, not by the principle. and in any case, it is pretty obvious when you look at the world (and the chess world is pretty much as the world in a smaller scale when it comes to this), that the democratic way is for losers without money and influence. people who have money and influence dont need the democratic system because they will simply buy their way out, or take it up at the golf course and the matter is out of the world. that is how it really works. Im not sure if Ivanchuk has that much power, but it will not be uncomplicated to simply remove him from the main chess events.

on a side note, to Peter (or anyone else who can elighten me): the WADA (I think the doping agency is called?) list of substances that arent allowed is obviously for physical sports. do they simply want to dump that whole list of substances on chess players, when in fact most of those substances (or any?) has been proven to give a player an advantage? in fact, many might just be a handicap, like drinking coffee. it isn't easy at all to prove one way or another...the brain is more complicated than muscles.

so anyway, is it a doping test exactly like other sports? If a player is caught with too much caffein in his/her body, will she be disqualified? I dont remember what the level is, but impretty sure there have been people disqualified from athletics because they (presumably) drank coffee. so, when will a chess player be disqualified for using illegal substanced after it being proven positive in a doping test?

@Michel83
Cheating is of course not te be allowed. If the rules were that players must cooperate when being searched for information they could have used during the game, written or electronical, and Ivanchuk had denied such cooperation, it would have been another story.
I'm not going to repeat the arguments on the usefulness of doping in chess. About everyone now knows the hilarious story about Euwe (bet he's a honorable man...) experimenting with amfetamins. If there are useful substances, they have serious, uncontrollable side-effects. But let's look at it from a more logical viewpoint.
In the Netherlands, sports are heavily subsidized by the state, games are not. It will be the same in many other countries. That seemed a good reason to get chess acknowledged as a sport. Of course this d?ɬ?dn't make any sense, but why care if a lot of money is involved. Some time later, when the Dutch chess union already heavily depended on government money, this step proved to have consequences. Every sport organisation was obliged to have doping regulations, chess could not be excepted. What now, say goodbye to all that lovely money? Only then lists began to appear of substances that might in some way prove useful. Logical, it's not just sport organisations that profit, doping investigators also want a share.
In cycling, there first was a doping problem, then came the regulations, and finally there were financial consequences. In chess, money was first, then came the regulations, then a doping problem had to be invented. Let people look for something, offer them a handfull of silver, and they will find it.
We should not go along with this and applaud anyone who exposes such nonsense.

@ Frits

What is your definition of cheating then?
Is a drug that has
a) an effect on your body in the sense that you will be able to take much more tiredness and physical stress and unfair advantage
b) an effect on your brain (concentration etc) an unfair advantage?

It sounds like you saying "Chess is a game, not sports" makes chess immune to cheating, but that's not true. So I wonder what your definition of cheating and answer to my questions above is?

And as a disclaimer:
I by no means mean to attack you, I am just interested in you clarifying your views instead of just writing it is a stupid rule.

Cheers,
M.

i love chuky, but play by the rules.
and... what sort of 'dope' does one do to makes ones chess better?

"What I said was that someone can protest _by breaking_ the rules, not protest after breaking the rules."

That is only the last resort.

1) When doping tests were announced for the first time, players should make a writen protest.

2) If that wouldn't help, they should announce that they will boycott the competition.

3) If that wouldn't help, they should really boycott the competition.

4) If somehow the players would be forced to participate (either by FIDE or their national federations) ONLY THEN they should protest by deliberatly breaking the rules!!!

Thats how it goes in democracy (nobody just goes to an outright strike, before exploiting all other possibilities). Breaking the rules without just like that, is just anarchy.

And for the record, I don't think Ivanchuk used any doping, however declining the test is the same as if he had used it. And by the way, seems like you don't know Ivanchuk at all - yes, he is a great and very interesting player, but he is hardly a "nice chap". Besides it doesn't matter who it was, my position would be the same as if it was Anand, Carlsen or Chuki Obangwemi from Nigeria. Rules are the same for everybody.

And yes, I consider everybody that is angry on the whole world and is unaproachable (like Ivanchuk was) when things don't go their way, a spoiled brat. Nobody requested from Ivanchuk to pee with a smile, he just had to pee, or better said he just had to go to the doping room. Don't tell me he was so depressed that he couldn't walk. He just ignored the officials. You just can't do that as a professional, and Ivanchuk is a professional chess player. So if that is too much for him as a professional, then i think FIDE should do him a favour and suspend him. He will still be able to play chess, but as an amateur, with no doping tests, no press, no money, just chess. Just like he wants to.

"There are many rules. Some of them are stupid. It is one?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s choice whether to obey them blindly, like you are doing, or to disobey them, and try to change them. Have you ever heard of protests against laws? Of strikes? Probably not."

Oh, and where were you and the players BEFORE the Olympiad. If you want to protest then fine go and protest, don't show up at the Olympiad! By showing up you agreed to the rules!!!

Breaking ther rules and then protesting is hipocrisy.

I didn't hear any of the players protesting about doping controls. Anand stated in one of the press conferences in Bonn that they are useless in chess, but that was it. No protests from anybody.

You have to protest when something is announced, not when you get caught!!!

I actually DO think that Doping is possible in Chess, since physical reason DO have an effect on your play (those very long tournaments are physically pretty exhausting for players). Also I think it could be possible to "dope" concentration and such.

Nevertheless the advantage of this is far smaller than in other sports and it is true there is other more effective ways of doping in Chess. But saying that Doping in Chess is impossible and has not effect at all is exagerated in my opinion.

So I do agree there have to be doping tests. But since the advantage resulting through doping is rather small, I think the punishement can't be the same as in other sports; that means a 2-year-ban might be ok in sports where it brings you a big advantage, but not in Chess.

In my opinion a fine for Chuky would do. There have to be doping rules, but they have to be adjusted for Chess! Let's make him pay money, that's a fair solution.

The irony of this is that this happened to Chuky, a player who has always been fair, polite and in love with the game and never caused a "Toiletgate", "Handshakegate" or similar. A player not caring for fame, money or rating points, like so many nowadays players, but who just wants to play chess. This is really ironic...

In this specific case I also think it is wrong to bitch against FIDE, because they are in a stupid situation now; any decision they can take as a solution will be heavily critizised.

This is what chessbase says (Chuky kicking a pillar, I wanna see that...):

"Vassily Ivanchuk, who can suffer like no other contemporary chess player from an unnecessary loss, emerged from the hall and started kicking a pillar ("A wonder," said a spectator, "that he did not fracture a number of toes."). Unfortunately the Ukrainian team had been selected for a FIDE doping control, and an arbiter tried to lead Ivanchuk to the checking area for a unrine sample. But the distraught Ukrainian star broke free and disappeared for the rest of the evening. This put FIDE into a quandary: to cancel all results of the Ukrainian team at the Olympiad, as clearly prescribed by the IOC rules, and give the medals to different teams; or to make an exception and risk chess not becoming an Olympic discipline for ignoring the doping rules. After some passionate canvassing by former World Champion Boris Spassky FIDE went for the second option. "

Chess is not a sport, it's a game.
The only reason people want it to be a sport is that then it can become olympic.
The only reason people want chess to be olympic is the money supposed to be involved. This means having to keep to ridiculous rules.
If one player could say he presents the soul of chess at this moment, it's Ivanchuk, in his results, but especially in his deligthment and his sorrow.
Punishing Ivanchuk for trespassing on a ridiculous rule is selling our soul to the devil. He didn't.
Any tournament organiser who would ban Ivanchuk on the grounds involved should be despised and boycotted, by players and press.

Even IF Ivanchuk had taken all the doping in the world, I'm sure there's no chess lover in the world who would hold it against him as long as he keeps playing the brilliant chess that he does. That's the problem with doping: everybody seems to think it's bad by definition, but this is very dogmatic. After all, the whole human body is full of potential doping. It's the essence of life.

@me: concerning your comment ... however, "THE RULES ARE THE RULES!!!"

There are many rules. Some of them are stupid. It is one's choice whether to obey them blindly, like you are doing, or to disobey them, and try to change them. Have you ever heard of protests against laws? Of strikes? Probably not.

In any case, I doubt you will find many people supporting your view that, because of his emotional reaction, Ivanchuk should be forced to retire from chess. I think that, given his age, this is what will happen if he is banned for two years.

Moreover, where is the rule that says he must be banned for two years? And why wasn't it applied in the past? Shaun Press and Bobby Miller, who refused to take a dopping test in the Calvia Olympiad 2004 and were punished by having their points reduced from their teams' totals.

Most chessplayers think that anti-doping control is pointless in chess. There are other ways to cheat, much more effective than taking substances. Tournament directors should focus on taking measures to prevent them from happening.
People at the IOC don't know a lot about chess, and they should leave more freedom to the chess world to manage their game.
If Ivanchuk, a top player, should be banned for two years for this ridiculous reason, this would be a tougher blow to chess than not becoming an olympic sport. Perhaps it is not worth becoming an olympic sport if chess has to change too much.

We can discuss endlesly if the doping controls are reasonable in chess or not, however THE RULES ARE THE RULES!!!

If the rules say that there are doping controls, then the rules must be followed. It's as simple as that. NOBODY is above the rules, they are the same for everybody - from untitled 3rd world players to top professionals like Ivanchuk. If Ivanchuk acts like a spoiled brat after losing a game, then this is his problem. He should now face the consequences (2 year ban) of his actions (refusing the doping control).

At least thats what would happen in a serious sport. But we all know that chess isn't serious.

Agree,

A dopingtest for chess might not be effective but nevertheless; Just piss in a cup man. All those guys talking about the honour of the players......If you have nothing to hide you dont need to run either.

Chess players want that chess is treated as a serious sport, that it gets more media attention and that the prize funds are higher, however they they are doing everything to undermine those efforts.

How dare we demand from them that they have to show up for the game punctually!

How dare we to demand from them that they actually play chess instead of agreening to a draw after 12 moves.

How dare we to demand from them that they are available to the media after the games.

How dare we to demand from them that they follow the rules (like doping control).

How dare we to demand from them to act like grown-ups.

etc.

OK , but chess should obey the olimpic rules AFTER becoming an Olimpic sport , not before.
If not it would be like behaving good for Santa Claus or something like that , chess deserves more than that.
Ivanchuk cannot be punished , we cannot affor to lose 2 years of one of the most beloved and active players we have.
There are many more serious reasons to worry about than dopping , electronic dopping can kill chess more effectively.Not to mention the actual corruption in the world championship cycle.
It s ok to become an Olimpic sport , but chess cannot adapt to a dopping system which doesnt fit the needs of the sport.
We need serious up to date protection from electronic cheats , not an urine sample from Chucky.

I think the doping test doesn't make sense to do it to somebody who didn't win any medal.
And of course nobody wants to see Chuky banned from chess tournaments! That would be crazy from FIDE!
Come on.

I read that FIDE decided to do nothing in this case. It's ridiciolous, if the IOC would decide that chess becomes an olympic sport, they would simply make an exception in their rules...

Stefan L?ɬ?ffler's article (in German) on the Ivanchuk story has now been put online by the Berliner Zeitung.

There is more on the Ivanchuk case at http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/