Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

worldchess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#81

Post by mistercow »

_yosefk wrote: post #27
mistercow wrote: post #2

Transhumanism sure has a long road ahead as far as people's attitudes toward self-enhancement.

I think the attitude toward "self-enhancement" using mind-altering substances reflects the suspicion that it really isn't, meaning that the side effects are not worth the positive effects. People have very positive attitudes towards "self-enhancement" through various life-saving surgeries as they don't doubt that being alive a few more years is better than dying from a curable disease in the next few weeks. I'm sure…

People come up with a lot of rationalizations for being opposed to artificial self-enhancement. But most don't apply the same standards to "natural" self-enhancement, even when we know that there are severe tradeoffs.

In particular, people overly discount the value of life-seconds. What is the opportunity cost of putting in however many extra hours it would take to practicing chess, in order to account for the benefit of using modafinil? Is that cost outweighed by the small risk that there's some hidden deleterious effect of modafinil which has somehow eluded scientists for thirty years? And even if so, why should we police individual choices of what risks to take in life?

After all, we know that baseball pitchers are at extremely high risk for shoulder injuries. Should we enforce rules that limit practice time, intensity, and technique, so that other pitchers don't have to risk their bodies to compete? Should we put an asterisk next to the names of pitchers who are found to violate those rules, and kick them out of the sport?

That seems, broadly speaking, not to be the kind of choice we've made as a society when it comes to "old-fashioned" self enhancement. Yet we do make that choice when it comes to "artificial" enhancement. I put it to you that the distinction is arbitrary.

Edit: Just one other thing: "mind-altering substance the users of which appear to experience no negative effects and major improvements in their functioning"

That very nearly describes modafinil for most people. (If you're going to say "all people", you've set the bar so high that no drug will ever reach it. Ibuprofen doesn't even meet that bar.)

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#82

Post by xeonoex »

zw123456 wrote: post #69

I actually did a test myself with pot a while back, also playing against a computer, my thinking there was that it would provide the most consistent opponent skill level. I tried varying amounts. I saw a fairly significant improvement with small doses, less than what someone would use for entertainment purposes, an amount just before what could be called a high. I think it may increase concentration at the right dosa…

I think you're probably right. I don't really have concentration problems in the first place, but in small doses, I feel like I can focus a bit better on a single thing. Too much and my brain still works but I tend to go off on a tangent, then proceed to get completely lost in thought. Also, too much means a lot of my time is consumed eating or looking for food.

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#83

Post by dududu »

yarou wrote: post #78
dududu wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you know what several orders of magnitude means. Did you have an IQ of 10 and then got to 100 or 1000? Anyway, this aside, the feeling that you are few times smarter is there, like I say, it's a high ( which, btw, like any dopamine pumping thing, means your next high needs Moar and moar) . The reality is that you are a bit smarter, not few times more, and you work much more.

I didn't mean orders of magnitude in the literal sense, otherwise I would have included my IQ. Judging from the fact that you created your account recently and your first post ever is negative about Adderall suggests to me that you have an agenda. I'm sorry Adderall fucked up your life bro, but spreading FUD about it does everyone a disservice, especially for those who want to get into cognitive enhancement.

This isn't FUD, this is presenting you with the other side of the coin, what you are losing, what you are risking, from first hand and second hand experience ( I happened to escape the treadmill, but friends of mine didn't get that lucky...). I never denied the enhancements, only their magnitude. And I think they are not worth the risks. Others think they are.

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#84

Post by otakucode »

Swizec wrote: post #47
aantix wrote: post #13

I've been taking 400mg of Magnesium Glycinate two times a day along with 200mg of Theanine (also twice a day) with my usual two cups of coffee. I feel fantastically focused without the jittery edge that accompanies caffeine alone.

A few years ago I discovered CogniTea[1]. It's a tea blend that puts 90mg of caffeine, 100mg of L-Theanine and some gingko and such in every tea bag. Best stimulant I've ever used. So I guess I'm on 400mg+ of Theanine per day. Have been for 2 or 3 years. :D I suggest giving it a shot. I got the entire office hooked. My favorite part is that when I travel and don't drink it, there's no headache. Sure, feels like brain…

How many strokes have there been in your office? Ginkgo is not something I would widely suggest to people without knowing how robust their circulatory system is...

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#85

Post by qeternity »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #74

How do they know it's not due to confidence boost? These drugs can make you feel "good" and confident, which all top competitors spend a lot of time trying to build up.

You're implying that improved confidence is not a form of cognitive enhancement, when all anecdotal evidence would suggest the opposite.

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#86

Post by scottmf »

otakucode wrote: post #84
Swizec wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago I discovered CogniTea[1]. It's a tea blend that puts 90mg of caffeine, 100mg of L-Theanine and some gingko and such in every tea bag. Best stimulant I've ever used. So I guess I'm on 400mg+ of Theanine per day. Have been for 2 or 3 years. :D I suggest giving it a shot. I got the entire office hooked. My favorite part is that when I travel and don't drink it, there's no headache. Sure, feels like brain…

How many strokes have there been in your office? Ginkgo is not something I would widely suggest to people without knowing how robust their circulatory system is...

Could you elaborate?

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#87

Post by uxp100 »

zw123456 wrote: post #69

I actually did a test myself with pot a while back, also playing against a computer, my thinking there was that it would provide the most consistent opponent skill level. I tried varying amounts. I saw a fairly significant improvement with small doses, less than what someone would use for entertainment purposes, an amount just before what could be called a high. I think it may increase concentration at the right dosa…

Interesting. I, like many stereotypical nerds have smoked weed and played Magic the Gathering.

With real cards, I kinda find the game irritating, but didn't feel a skill drop. Just would rather listen to music or just look at the pictures on the cards.

With MTGO, the official online client for Magic, I made a number of bad mistakes. No purposeful misplays, just lots of misclicks, accidentally skipping phases, etc.

But I am talking about being actually high here.

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#88

Post by gmluke »

SeanLuke wrote: post #17
cven714 wrote: post #3

The study was done with rapid games, against computers, where they discarded human losses on time. Not very confident in those results. But hopefully the researcher gets the chance to try and reproduce and use classical time controls, and human vs. human opponents.

> where they discarded human losses on time. This stinks of p-value hunting. I can only imagine the study went like this. They did all these tests and then found that there were no statistically significant improvements after using these drugs. So they said to themselves, how can we tweak the parameters so as to get something publishable? Sure, let's eliminate an entire class of games where our control group does bet…

Especially so when you consider that a player is much more likely to lose on time when the position is already bad.

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#89

Post by otakucode »

_yosefk wrote: post #27
mistercow wrote: post #2

Transhumanism sure has a long road ahead as far as people's attitudes toward self-enhancement.

I think the attitude toward "self-enhancement" using mind-altering substances reflects the suspicion that it really isn't, meaning that the side effects are not worth the positive effects. People have very positive attitudes towards "self-enhancement" through various life-saving surgeries as they don't doubt that being alive a few more years is better than dying from a curable disease in the next few weeks. I'm sure…

The difference is that people have a very closely protected idea of 'normal' and seek to preserve that beyond all else. Ameliorating disease is acceptable to re-attain normal. Enhancement above 'normal' is just as aberrant, if not more so, as permitting disease to spread unchecked. This is woven into the fabric of our society and always has been. The FDA in the US, for example, is tasked with regulating things which claim to "treat, cure, or prevent disease." They do not permit anything which is intended to enhance or improve a person beyond 'normal'. Were a pill developed tomorrow which gave the taker the ability to lift 500 pounds more with no negative side effects, it would be banned by default.

A good concrete example and disproof of your expectation which starts your second paragraph is piracetam and other members of the racetam family. They're legal in the US, as well as in other parts of the world. They are well supported by research to provide cognitive enhancement. The side effects are minimal. Yet, it's not widely available in the US. It has no way in to a market which is regulated for the purpose of preventing or treating disease, with no provision for enhancement.

There are, make no mistake, substantial and very important issues surrounding the idea of human enhancement, don't misunderstand me. It's just that those serious concerns are not what concern the majority of people. The majority are concerned about preserving a fictional idea of 'normal'.

Re: New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

#90

Post by the_watcher »

scott_s wrote: post #60
the_watcher wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I was just commenting that the title of the article was misleading to me. The study didn't find performance enhancing drugs, it found a link between drugs that allegedly enhance cognitive performance and an activity that requires high cognitive performance. Perhaps it's just semantics, but the findings of the study just weren't the type that I expected based on the title.

And your initial comment sounded to me like you were taking it for granted that such drugs do indeed enhance cognitive performance - which I don't think is a given.

In that case, my fault for not being clear. You're right, I do lean towards the conclusion that some of those drugs enhance cognitive performance (particularly the ones that are used for treatment of ADHD), but you're also right that currently, there isn't sufficient evidence to treat that as a given.
Post reply on HN