14 ms·

New Study Finds Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Chess

188 points by EvgeniyZh 10y ago

mistercow 10y ago
Transhumanism sure has a long road ahead as far as people's attitudes toward self-enhancement.
- _rpd 10y ago
  In the context of formal tournaments, people would likely be more accepting if there were separate competition classes.
  - mistercow 10y ago
    That would be a huge step in the right direction. I actually think we should do the same thing for athletic competitions.
    - lfowles 10y ago
      I'm not sure professional athletes need more encouragement to ruin their bodies for our entertainment...
      - dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
        I think they do, if it means they can pursue their goals without threat of having their life's work destroyed. I, for one, find the idea of doping and how to get around anti-doping schemes to be far more interesting than the pursuit of some arbitrary standard of excellent-but-didn't-cheat. Like blood doping is so different from things that are legal, like living in Denver!
    - John23832 10y ago
      I get what you're saying, but people would still use performance enhancers in the "clean" classes. People cheat for the sake of winning.
      - mistercow 10y ago
        Probably, but that's not the problem we're trying to solve. I don't care about the clean division, but it's fine that some people do. If you add a "doping" allowed division, the clean division is no worse off than it is now. It might be better, or it might not. But that's a secondary goal if anything.
- _yosefk 10y ago
  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.
  - mistercow 10y ago
    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.)
  - otakucode 10y ago
    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'.
cven714 10y ago
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.
- eutectic 10y ago
  I think it would be too difficult/expensive to run enough trials to achieve statistical significance.
- SeanLuke 10y ago
  > 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 10y ago
    > 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...?
eutectic 10y ago
I wonder how nicotine would fare.
fdsfsaa 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Other than amphetamines and caffiene, what would these 'half of tech'be on?
  - fdsfsaa 10y ago
    Modafinil and nicotine. Cocaine too, I imagine, although that's more a sales guy thing.
    - fizixer 10y ago
      nicotine through pill, not smoking a cigarette?
      - fdsfsaa 10y ago
        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 10y ago
        Just a minor correction, MAOI = MAO inhibitors. MAOI inhibitors is redundant.
        eutectic 10y ago
        Lozenges are also available. It's interesting to note that apparently nicotine is not addictive without the MOAIs from tobacco smoke.
    - 10y ago
aantix 10y ago
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.
- artursapek 10y ago
  Do you worry about becoming dependent on that?
  - uberstuber 10y ago
    The only addictive thing there is the caffeine from coffee.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Addictive and dependent are too different things. I am dependent on my car, but it is not addictive.
      - artursapek 10y ago
        Exactly. I am dependent on Google to do my job, but I am not addicted to it.
        wapz 10y ago
        How are you dependent on Google for your job? Do you work for google?
        wapz 10y ago
        Thank you for the downvotes, I appreciate it. Now would someone mind explaining how you can be dependent on Google for your job?
        10y ago
tedsanders 10y ago
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).
- gburt 10y ago
  For myself, I usually find that at some point (sometimes quite early) I find no gain in moving along the time-quality frontier. Specifically, I find that an extra unit of time would seem to provide no change in quality. I think this might imply that I've "maxed out" and any need to move along the frontier would need to be met with a requisite increase in ability.
- scott_s 10y ago
  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.
beefman 10y ago
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-turkey-grinder/ https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/magnus-and-the-tur...
towaway 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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-happiness-and-one-gene-comt-catechol-o-methyl-transferase/ https://neuroamer.com/2012/06/29/card-sorting-pot-smoking-ha...
  - malandrew 10y ago
    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.
mtw 10y ago
Ha! Should we ban coffee?!?
yarou 10y ago
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 10y ago
  "Limited"? psychosis! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis
  - yarou 10y ago
    In excessive dosage, sure. Alcohol will also cause you to make incredibly poor judgements, in excessive amounts. The key is responsible use.
- dududu 10y ago
  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.
  - yarou 10y ago
    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.
the_watcher 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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.
      - the_watcher 10y ago
        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.
      - 10y ago
gwern 10y ago
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbt04gej3syoygz/2017-franke.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbt04gej3syoygz/2017-franke.pdf?dl...
- yarou 10y ago
  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.
nv-vn 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Yes, and for programming as well. Should be easy to test.
zw123456 10y ago
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.
- yial 10y ago
  Anecdotal: I used to play chess frequently against a friend, who smoked pot pretty regularly. When he was sober, I usually would win. When he was starting to get high, he would usually win. When he was fully not sober, we would usually tie. I do not smoke, so I was always sober during these games.
  - taneq 10y ago
    So you're suggesting there's something analagous to the Ballmer Peak but for pot?
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      Jokes aside, alcohol and, pot it seems, inhibit the brains ability to process complex things. This mean you're more likely to abandon ideas that are too complex to handle anyway, and thus cover more ideas that you can handle.
      - mi100hael 10y ago
        I disagree. From my own experience, my chess game (or programming or other tasks involving concentration) suffer after even a single drink. My brain abandons complex ideas that it would normally be able to handle given some time and concentration.
- tempestn 10y ago
  Is it possible the advantage was related to something like creativity or insight?
WhitneyLand 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    I think it's a significant difference. For example, this would mean it's unlikely to benefit Alzheimer's patients.
- jplasmeier 10y ago
  What's the difference if the effect is the same?
- qeternity 10y ago
  You're implying that improved confidence is not a form of cognitive enhancement, when all anecdotal evidence would suggest the opposite.
- leni536 10y ago
  From the publication: > We conducted a phase IV, single-center, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled 4 x 4 crossover trial. I assume it means that the control group gets placebo, so it's controlled for confidence boost.
aaron695 10y ago
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
lend000 10y ago
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.
known 10y ago
Dopamine?
kuerbel 10y ago
The only actual performance-enhancing drug I know of is creatine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_supplements#Cognitive_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_supplements#Cognitive...) I'm a vegetarian, and since ~8 months I take creatine daily. I wonder why it has this effect on vegetarians and vegans...
- dood 10y ago
  Your link answers your question: "Vegetarian supplementation with creatine seems to be especially beneficial as they appear to have lower average body stores, since meat is a primary source of dietary creatine."
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  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.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  I got calcium oxalate kidney stones after taking creatine. Worst pain in my life, by far. Had to go to the emergency room. I'll spare you the details except to say it was not a fun time. After I stopped taking creatine, I stopped getting kidney stones.
thampiman 10y ago
Ok, who knows how to get them?
LifeQuestioner 10y ago
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.

188 points by EvgeniyZh 10y ago

mistercow 10y ago

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

_rpd 10y ago
In the context of formal tournaments, people would likely be more accepting if there were separate competition classes.
- mistercow 10y ago
  That would be a huge step in the right direction. I actually think we should do the same thing for athletic competitions.
  - lfowles 10y ago
    I'm not sure professional athletes need more encouragement to ruin their bodies for our entertainment...
    - dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
      I think they do, if it means they can pursue their goals without threat of having their life's work destroyed. I, for one, find the idea of doping and how to get around anti-doping schemes to be far more interesting than the pursuit of some arbitrary standard of excellent-but-didn't-cheat. Like blood doping is so different from things that are legal, like living in Denver!
  - John23832 10y ago
    I get what you're saying, but people would still use performance enhancers in the "clean" classes. People cheat for the sake of winning.
    - mistercow 10y ago
      Probably, but that's not the problem we're trying to solve. I don't care about the clean division, but it's fine that some people do. If you add a "doping" allowed division, the clean division is no worse off than it is now. It might be better, or it might not. But that's a secondary goal if anything.
_yosefk 10y ago
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.
- mistercow 10y ago
  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.)
- otakucode 10y ago
  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'.

cven714 10y ago

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.

eutectic 10y ago
I think it would be too difficult/expensive to run enough trials to achieve statistical significance.
SeanLuke 10y ago
> 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 10y ago
  > 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...?

eutectic 10y ago

I wonder how nicotine would fare.

fdsfsaa 10y ago

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 10y ago
Other than amphetamines and caffiene, what would these 'half of tech'be on?
- fdsfsaa 10y ago
  Modafinil and nicotine. Cocaine too, I imagine, although that's more a sales guy thing.
  - fizixer 10y ago
    nicotine through pill, not smoking a cigarette?
    - fdsfsaa 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        Just a minor correction, MAOI = MAO inhibitors. MAOI inhibitors is redundant.
      - eutectic 10y ago
        Lozenges are also available. It's interesting to note that apparently nicotine is not addictive without the MOAIs from tobacco smoke.
  - 10y ago

aantix 10y ago

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.

artursapek 10y ago
Do you worry about becoming dependent on that?
- uberstuber 10y ago
  The only addictive thing there is the caffeine from coffee.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Addictive and dependent are too different things. I am dependent on my car, but it is not addictive.
    - artursapek 10y ago
      Exactly. I am dependent on Google to do my job, but I am not addicted to it.
      - wapz 10y ago
        How are you dependent on Google for your job? Do you work for google?
        wapz 10y ago
        Thank you for the downvotes, I appreciate it. Now would someone mind explaining how you can be dependent on Google for your job?
        10y ago

tedsanders 10y ago

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).

gburt 10y ago
For myself, I usually find that at some point (sometimes quite early) I find no gain in moving along the time-quality frontier. Specifically, I find that an extra unit of time would seem to provide no change in quality. I think this might imply that I've "maxed out" and any need to move along the frontier would need to be met with a requisite increase in ability.
scott_s 10y ago
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.

beefman 10y ago

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-turkey-grinder/ https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/magnus-and-the-tur...

towaway 10y ago

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 10y ago
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-happiness-and-one-gene-comt-catechol-o-methyl-transferase/ https://neuroamer.com/2012/06/29/card-sorting-pot-smoking-ha...
- malandrew 10y ago
  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.

mtw 10y ago

Ha! Should we ban coffee?!?

yarou 10y ago

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 10y ago
"Limited"? psychosis! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis
- yarou 10y ago
  In excessive dosage, sure. Alcohol will also cause you to make incredibly poor judgements, in excessive amounts. The key is responsible use.
dududu 10y ago
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.
- yarou 10y ago
  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.

the_watcher 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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.
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      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.
    - 10y ago

gwern 10y ago

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbt04gej3syoygz/2017-franke.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbt04gej3syoygz/2017-franke.pdf?dl...

yarou 10y ago
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.

nv-vn 10y ago

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 10y ago
Yes, and for programming as well. Should be easy to test.

zw123456 10y ago

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.

yial 10y ago
Anecdotal: I used to play chess frequently against a friend, who smoked pot pretty regularly. When he was sober, I usually would win. When he was starting to get high, he would usually win. When he was fully not sober, we would usually tie. I do not smoke, so I was always sober during these games.
- taneq 10y ago
  So you're suggesting there's something analagous to the Ballmer Peak but for pot?
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    Jokes aside, alcohol and, pot it seems, inhibit the brains ability to process complex things. This mean you're more likely to abandon ideas that are too complex to handle anyway, and thus cover more ideas that you can handle.
    - mi100hael 10y ago
      I disagree. From my own experience, my chess game (or programming or other tasks involving concentration) suffer after even a single drink. My brain abandons complex ideas that it would normally be able to handle given some time and concentration.
tempestn 10y ago
Is it possible the advantage was related to something like creativity or insight?

WhitneyLand 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  I think it's a significant difference. For example, this would mean it's unlikely to benefit Alzheimer's patients.
jplasmeier 10y ago
What's the difference if the effect is the same?
qeternity 10y ago
You're implying that improved confidence is not a form of cognitive enhancement, when all anecdotal evidence would suggest the opposite.
leni536 10y ago
From the publication: > We conducted a phase IV, single-center, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled 4 x 4 crossover trial. I assume it means that the control group gets placebo, so it's controlled for confidence boost.

aaron695 10y ago

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

lend000 10y ago

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.

known 10y ago

Dopamine?

kuerbel 10y ago

The only actual performance-enhancing drug I know of is creatine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_supplements#Cognitive_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_supplements#Cognitive...) I'm a vegetarian, and since ~8 months I take creatine daily. I wonder why it has this effect on vegetarians and vegans...

dood 10y ago
Your link answers your question: "Vegetarian supplementation with creatine seems to be especially beneficial as they appear to have lower average body stores, since meat is a primary source of dietary creatine."
Nomentatus 10y ago
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.
pmoriarty 10y ago
I got calcium oxalate kidney stones after taking creatine. Worst pain in my life, by far. Had to go to the emergency room. I'll spare you the details except to say it was not a fun time. After I stopped taking creatine, I stopped getting kidney stones.

thampiman 10y ago

Ok, who knows how to get them?

LifeQuestioner 10y ago

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.