
New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess - EvgeniyZh
https://worldchess.com/2017/01/25/special-report-new-study-finds-performance-enhancing-drugs-for-chess/
======
cven714
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.

~~~
SeanLuke
> 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 better than the test subjects.

Problem is, the most likely explanation for this is that people on these drugs
spend more time thinking, and longer think time naturally is correlated with
better results. But that's not how chess is played, else we'd all spend five
hours on each move. Chess is about bounded rationality. As a result it looks
to me that that they biased the results as to naturally achieve a desired
effect.

~~~
RangerScience
> else we'd all spend five hours on each move. Chess is about bounded
> rationality

Without any other tools (as in, pencil and paper to note conclusions), do you
really think you could make a more effective move given five hours?

I mean - if the conclusion of the study is actually that use of drugs gave
players a larger _personal_ time bounds within which to think up a move,
that's still significant.

I don't know about you, but my #1 blocker for productivity is how long I can
actually concentrate on something. If a drug lets me focus for 10% longer,
even if it doesn't improve my capabilities _while_ focusing, that's still
huge.

Edit: But you're not wrong, it does stink of p-value hunting. On the other
hand, if your experiment is expecting one correlation, and instead you find
another... then the p-value hunting was the correct move...?

~~~
metaxy2
There are certainly players who could make a much better move given five hours
in a highly complex position (not _every_ move--you'd be hitting sleep
deprivation by move 3!). It's not unheard of for grandmasters to spend an hour
of clock time on one move, and I bet you money that same player would
sometimes go to 2 or 3 hours if they weren't on the clock.

As to visualization without pen and paper, the best blindfold players can keep
track of a whole board in their mind, and explore variations deeply without
losing track of the current state of the board or forgetting about the key
variations they found along the way.

It sounds like you're into chess more than me, so I'm sure you know most of
this stuff, I'm just noting it for other people in the thread.

------
the_watcher
The title is somewhat misleading - I assumed they discovered a new type of
drug that was enhancing performance. Actually, it's just the first study to
actually bear out the (not particularly shocking) conclusion that drugs that
enhance cognitive performance help in a game that depends on cognitive
performance.

~~~
scott_s
I think you're not impressed because you already assumed these drugs enhance
cognitive performance. That, I think, is what the study is really about: do
these particular drugs actually enhance cognitive performance? But, in order
to test that, they need to pick a cognitive task, and in this case, the
cognitive task happens to be chess.

~~~
the_watcher
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.

~~~
scott_s
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.

~~~
saurik
I had the same confusion. I would have then said "New Study Finds Evidence for
Cognitive Performance-Enhancing Drugs: They Help with Chess" or something. The
way "for Chess" is tacked on the end makes it seem like the most important
detail: I would argue just reading this title would make one go "oh, I guess
we already had these for other tasks, but this is the first one _for Chess_ ".
In fact, as worded, my second option was "what they really mean is that people
are using them in the wild and they are what is making or breaking
tournements", not "we have just discovered it is possible".

------
tedsanders
Does this study actually provide strong evidence for performance enhancement?

Folks who took the drugs took longer to play their moves. They lost more games
on time, but ignoring those games, their play was better and they consequently
won more games.

But imagine an alternate study where players were given the instructions to
take more time on their moves. In this study, they would have lost more games
on time, but when they didn't lose on time, their play would have been
stronger and they consequently would have won more games.

In such an alternate study, I wouldn't say their brains got better. They just
made a different choice to play at a different point on their efficient time-
quality frontier.

I wonder - how much did these drugs push the frontier outward, rather than
just trading off to move along it?

Nonetheless, it's interesting that this study tried to answer why/how these
nootropics work (maybe they make you more reflective) and also understand in
what circumstances such drugs won't help (in situations where you're under
time pressure).

~~~
scott_s
Strong evidence? No. But the authors do not claim it as strong evidence. From
near the end:

 _Dr. Lieb said that there are two caveats to the results. One is that they
must be replicated by additional studies before it would be possible to say
with some degree of certainty that the drugs enhance performance.

The second was that the study contained a flaw: the games were too quick,
creating the problem of time-forfeits in some games. Additional studies would
need to have the subjects play longer games._

The author's explanation is also not quite "their brains got better":

 _The study’s conclusion addressed the additional thinking time as a critical
component of the effect of the stimulants. The authors wrote, “This suggests
that neuroenhancers do not enhance the quality of thinking and decision-making
per time unit but improve the players’ ability or willingness to spend more
time on a decision and hence to perform more thorough calculations.”_

Your explanation would, however, make an interesting control. If people can't
effectively will themselves to spend more time, and further studies are able
to repeat the effect when there is no time limit, then that would be stronger
evidence.

~~~
andai
That's interesting, my experience (and my friend's) with Modafinil has been
that it helps you stay with a task for longer, in other words leaving things
unfinished bothers you more than it usually does.

------
aantix
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.

~~~
jayajay
I was given some L Theanine by a friend of mine, because I complained about
not being able to silent my thoughts when I sleep. Apparently, L Theanine is
great at reducing this mental crosstalk. I tried some for a few nights, but I
didn't notice an appreciable change. Did you notice the effects after taking
it for a few weeks, or do you get them immediately?

~~~
edgarvaldes
>not being able to silent my thoughts when I sleep

What do you mean by that?

~~~
jayajay
Thoughts are mainly about work and problems that I need to solve. When I am
trying to sleep, I will sometimes work on a problem in my head because it's
"bothering me", and this can postpone my sleep by up to an hour.

This happened to me a lot in college on homework sets. Some sets would take
hours to complete, and if I could not solve a problem before sleeping, I would
"give up" and go to sleep, only to continue thinking about the problem.

The best way to describe what is happening is: I'll be trying to sleep, and I
will think about the problem statement. Sometimes I will find a new
perspective, and follow that. If it doesn't lead anywhere, I will go back to
the problem statement, and the process repeats. Sometimes I'll just repeat the
problem statement in my head hundreds of times over the course of an hour,
hoping I'll find a different path to the solution.

It's tempting to keep thinking and not sleep. In my experience, this is an
affliction more than it is an asset. This is why I am interested in L
Theanine.

~~~
vaxvix
keep thinking softly to fell asleep in a vivid dream and solve the problem

~~~
jayajay
Too meta, cannot stop thinking about how much meta...

------
zw123456
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 dosage level.

~~~
tempestn
Is it possible the advantage was related to something like creativity or
insight?

~~~
matt4077
Other hypothesis: any improvement in mood may positively impact your ability
to think for long stretches of time.

~~~
tempestn
Yep. Or increased confidence / decreased nervousness could minimize mistakes.
Lots of possibilities.

------
towaway
Hah. Oddly enough this tallies with my experience - about 5 years ago I ended
up buying a box of modafinil and took them periodically before work. Someone
asked me about what I thought of them and I reflected that I wasn't sure if it
helped my work or not but that it meant I could beat my phone Chess app on a
harder difficult setting than usual when I played on the way to work.

~~~
fancy_pantser
You may be an under-responder. With modafinil there seem to be large
populations that are over/under-sensitive.

I bought a box about 4 years ago as well to see if it helped at work. I turned
out to be sensitive to it and later investigated studies linking my genotype
with sensitivity (specifically a pleiotropic SNP in the COMT gene
rs4680/Val158Met). Most sequencing includes this well-studied SNP in the panel
if you're curious.

Starting with a "normal" 200mg dose was a disaster. Anxiety, shaking, racing
thoughts, nausea, and arrhythmia all struck on the ride to work and lasted 10
hours.

With 50mg taken right after breakfast, I was able to achieve some notable
effects and feelings of extra productivity but even a small amount of caffeine
or alcohol within 18 hours would make me sick. It proved to not be worthwhile
and I quit after a month.

Study on modafinil and Val158Met polymorphism:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19037200?dopt=Abstract](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19037200?dopt=Abstract)

More observations on Val158Met expression with links to studies:
[https://neuroamer.com/2012/06/29/card-sorting-pot-smoking-
ha...](https://neuroamer.com/2012/06/29/card-sorting-pot-smoking-happiness-
and-one-gene-comt-catechol-o-methyl-transferase/)

~~~
malandrew
I have some similar experiences myself. I take modafinil for narcolepsy.

A 200mg dose makes me really sleepy. A 50-100mg dose makes me more alert,
especially with a small amount of caffeine. A larger amount of caffeine with
50-100mg makes me sleepy again.

How did you get the sequencing done? I know I've been tested for the gene
associated with cataplexy (HLA-DQB1*0602 I think), but not sure about the
others you mentioned.

------
nv-vn
Would be interesting seeing the effects of microdosing psychedelics for chess.
In theory, it should improve problem-solving skills. While the effects of
stimulants seem rather expected in this situation, I think seeing information
on microcodes of LSD or psilocybin would be very interesting because they
could change performance in different ways.

~~~
fsiefken
Yes, and for programming as well. Should be easy to test.

------
beefman
To actually demonstrate this, same-individual comparisons with and without the
drug (on different days) should be made using IPRs.[1] I expect enhancement
may be seen in novice players but not in players with a stable Elo rating.

[1] [https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/magnus-and-the-
tur...](https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/magnus-and-the-turkey-
grinder/)

------
eutectic
I wonder how nicotine would fare.

------
LifeQuestioner
This is JOKES. I have ADHD - I find that ritalin REDUCES my chess abilities!
Not by a small amount either, by loads!!! How do I know this? Because on
chess.com my scores start rapidly decreasing, it takes me too long to make a
move, I'm overthinking my moves too much, trying to find ONE move rather than
my adhd brain letting me find 5 moves simultaneously. It took me a long time
to realise this was happening! And actually other drugs can make me better -
but definitely not anything stimulant based.

My point is - this study is not scientifically rigourous and it is not enough
to draw conclusions.

------
fdsfsaa
Why is it surprising that nootropics exist? Half the good people in tech are
on them. And there's nothing fucking wrong with that. "My body, my choice", as
the slogan goes.

~~~
germinalphrase
Other than amphetamines and caffiene, what would these 'half of tech'be on?

~~~
fdsfsaa
Modafinil and nicotine. Cocaine too, I imagine, although that's more a sales
guy thing.

~~~
fizixer
nicotine through pill, not smoking a cigarette?

~~~
fdsfsaa
Nicotine is best administrated through gum or a transdermal patch. I haven't
heard of many people using it in pill form. Nicotine alone is similar to
smoking a cigarette, but not identical: cigarettes also contain MAOI
inhibitors which have synergistic effects with nicotine.

~~~
nv-vn
Just a minor correction, MAOI = MAO inhibitors. MAOI inhibitors is redundant.

------
kuerbel
The only actual performance-enhancing drug I know of is creatine
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_supplements#Cognitive...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_supplements#Cognitive_performance))

I'm a vegetarian, and since ~8 months I take creatine daily. I wonder why it
has this effect on vegetarians and vegans...

~~~
Nomentatus
I take it, for the healing effect. I can't say I notice any effect on my
brain. But I can always double up on it! Creatine moves energy around in the
body and is found in all animals, but in no vegetables. Plants don't need it.
It gives your brain (etc, etc) more available energy than doesn't require
oxygen to use - it's an ATP transporter. With creatine, you skin and muscles
can help you think, by doing the hard work of supplying energy.

------
WhitneyLand
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.

~~~
ASpring
The mechanism doesn't really matter. Perhaps these drugs simply do make people
feel good and consequently they perform better. In the end it still increases
their performance on these tasks.

~~~
WhitneyLand
I think it's a significant difference. For example, this would mean it's
unlikely to benefit Alzheimer's patients.

------
lend000
Does this mean Adderall/Ritalin really does make you smarter/more creative? As
opposed to the folk wisdom that it increases your focus at the slight expense
of creativity?

Of course, this is assuming that creativity plays a role in chess, which
depends highly on whether we are studying amateurs as opposed to grandmasters.

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

~~~
_yosefk
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 that a mind-altering substance the users of which appear to
experience no negative effects and major improvements in their functioning
will be met with applause by most people. At the moment however there are
plenty of drug users for any value of "drug" that I know who do not serve as a
great advertisement for that drug.

~~~
otakucode
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'.

~~~
mistercow
I'm reminded of the Amish. From what I've read, although many people
mistakenly believe that the Amish reject all new technology, they in fact only
reject technology which would "change their way of life too much".

I think that people in general have a similar reluctance, and it causes change
to be slow (although not as slow as it is for the Amish, of course). People
are OK with new drugs that cure diseases because that's not _that_ different
from what they already know. It's just a new disease to toss in the age-old
bucket of "curing disease". But enhancement past "basically healthy" is a
whole new category in people's minds. It _feels_ like an enormous change, even
though it's probably not as big (at least in the short term) as curing
smallpox.

------
aaron695
Used in poker for years -

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/27/brain-
gain](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/27/brain-gain)

------
gwern
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbt04gej3syoygz/2017-franke.pdf?dl...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbt04gej3syoygz/2017-franke.pdf?dl=0)

~~~
yarou
I found this to be a bit counterintuitive:

"We conclude that in sum, the present study shows that pharmacological
modification of complex cognitive performance in a highly demanding task is
possible most likely by modifying decision making processes. More reflective
decision making may enhance performance when no time limit for the task at
hand is present but may have (emphasis mine) _disadvantageous_ effects under
time constraints especially in individuals who tend to be rather slow
thinkers."

Doesn't that mean stimulants are effectively useless for someone who tends to
be a "slow thinker"? I would expect that stimulants would speed up the
underlying decision making processes of a slow thinker, _especially_ during
times of stress/limited time constraints.

------
mtw
Ha! Should we ban coffee?!?

------
thampiman
Ok, who knows how to get them?

------
yarou
Anecdotally, Modafinil improved the functioning of the right hemisphere of my
brain. I noticed this type of enhancement with Phenibut as well, my "emotional
intelligence" was increased by one or two orders of magnitude.

On the other hand, Adderall increased my raw intelligence by several orders of
magnitude. I strongly believe that amphetamines should be decriminalized and
unscheduled, as they are the only class of pharmaceuticals that are proven to
increase cognition with a fairly limited side effect profile.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
"Limited"? psychosis!

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis)

~~~
yarou
In excessive dosage, sure.

Alcohol will also cause you to make incredibly poor judgements, in excessive
amounts. The key is responsible use.

