Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 14:51:52 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 17:42:58, margolies,marc wrote: >These are not charges based upon LIST's <<performance>> in a direct >way--Although all of LIST's defenders offer counter-proof regarding different >performance characteristics between Crafty and LIST. >The charge is PLAGIARISM-- lifting of (some)code. The Programmer in question has >not responded to the commitee's request for proof with a defense (according to >Levy's Report--I have no direct knowledge) therefore the Commitee had to act to >protect the legitimacy of the Tournament. Also the commitee's action were a >response to a complaint by an (unnamed) tournament participant who has standing >to do so. The question is whether there was enough evidence to legitimate the step to ask for the source. The fact that someone files a complaint is definitely not enough. And what the "circumstantial evidence"really is, is not mentioned at all. So it's a bit hard to judge here.. Thing is, there are good points for both sides. On the one hand, there's the statement from Dann Corbit, who saw part of the source (from an earlier version) and things like that. On the other hand, the experts responsible for this decision are not idiots. (E. A. Heinz and Jonathan Schaeffer among them) I don't really know what to think about the issue - apart from the fact that the timing of the decision is terrible and bad for the tournament. I hope the issue gets resolved soon and we also hear the POV of the programmer of List. Sargon
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.