Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 15:06:37 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 17:59:08, Andrew Williams wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 17:55:19, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>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 "committee" has no legal authority. Plagiarism is a violation of law, at >>least in some Countries. The individual suffering damages from plagiarism can >>seek and obtain compensation in a duly constituted Civil Court of Law. The >>"committee" is NOT a Court of Law. They have no business trying to pretend >>otherwise. They run risks by their own actions. They have no authority to >>judge and punish someone for a law violation and they have no authority to >>create their own laws either. In other words, this "committee" has put itself >>out on a very fragile limb. Let's just hope that the programmer has a very good >>sense of humor. >> >>Bob D. > >This is ridiculous. The tournament is a competition which is held under the >auspices of the ICGA. They set some rules. They are entitled to hold the >participants to those rules. Tournament Directors and the ICGA are not immune. Tournament Directors can and have been sued in the past. Sometimes their authority goes to their heads and they assume that they have more authority than they have. Incidentally, in case you wonder, I NEVER had any problem with tournament directors. Maybe that's because I always followed the rules. Bob D. >What is not clear is whether this is an appropriate case to *apply* the rules. >In other words, on what basis do they believe that List is a clone? I think that >most people in the wider community think the accusation is strange, to say the >least. But the rules are clear; if they had reason to suspect that a program is >a clone, they have the right to see the source code. The question is, why did >they suspect it? > >Andrew
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.