Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 06:12:37 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 09:02:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 08:55:58, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On August 22, 2004 at 08:19:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2004 at 06:33:35, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>On August 21, 2004 at 20:42:17, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 21, 2004 at 16:14:08, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 21, 2004 at 15:48:11, Graham Banks wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes but in the case of List the suspect is stronger than some baseless >>>>>>accusation because the ICGA decided to ban list. >>>>>> >>>>>>I expect that innocent person in this situation will do some steps to defend >>>>>>himself and Fritz did nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>>If some newspaper claim bad things about you and you do nothing against the >>>>>>newspaper then it is natural that people believe the newspaper inspite of the >>>>>>fact that there is no proof excpet the fact that it was written in the >>>>>>newspaper. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>I hope you are not picked as a juror with your preconceived notions of innocence >>>>>and guilt based on behavior patterns. The "requirement" to defend if you are >>>>>innocent is degrading and I can understand perfectly well why he elected not to >>>>>defend. It has no relevancy on his guilt or innocence. Also,If you believe >>>>>everything you read in a newspaper that is not refuted is true, not all your >>>>>beliefs will be true. It will serve you well to always carry around healthy >>>>>dose of professional skepicism. Btw, we're talking about a program that plays >>>>>a "game" -- in the big picture it may be that important to Reul to defend. >>>> >>>>Fritz Reul entered the WCCC. The rules of the WCCC state that if the tournament >>>>director requests it, the participant must provide a copy of his source-code for >>>>inspection. There's not "innocent until proven guilty" here; this was a >>>>competition with its own set of rules. He had the opportunity to prove his >>>>innocence, per the rules, and decided not to do so. This doesn't make him guilty >>>>of copying crafty, but it does make him guilty of breaking the rules, for which >>>>he was disqualified. >>>> >>>>I feel the same about this case as I do about cases where athletes avoid drug >>>>tests. Under law they are entitled to be assumed innocent of taking drugs (which >>>>may or may not be illegal outside of the competition) until proven guilty. Under >>>>the rules of the competition, they must submit themselves for drug testing. If >>>>they want to refuse to submit themselves for drug testing, they shouldn't enter >>>>the competition. >>>> >>>>I understand that the cases are not identical because in the WCCC rules, the TD >>>>has to have some reason to believe that a program is a clone of another (in >>>>atheletics it's just random). But I'm inclined to believe the TD in this >>>>instance. I can't imagine Jaap v.d. Herik suddenly getting up on his hind legs >>>>and accusing someone of something this serious without a VERY good reason. I >>>>have the advantage of you, I presume, because I have met him a couple of times. >>>> >>>>Andrew >>> >>> >>>Fine, if you know him so well. I doubt that you can say anything at all about >>>the LIST affair. But I can certainly ask you a question: would you think that >>>Jaap would also ask Fritz or Shredder for their source code if Vincent claimed >>>that they were partly Crafty clones? Would you really think that Jaap would want >>>to hurt his own sponsor? Now show me how good you know him. I met him twice BTW. >> >>What makes you so sure it was Vincent who made the complaint? I was told that it >> was not him. But that is hearsay. > > >Nothing for sure, I meant it because in the other case of RUFFIAN in Leiden he >was it too. Know what I mean? And also there he was wrong. But wrong or not, my >point was that you must answer if Jaap would also ask for ChessBase products in >that same way. I doubted it. LIST was not a threat for ChessBase programs but to >DIEP and SJENG in Graz. Make your choice. > > Why "must" I answer you? I have an opinion about an incident which happened. I don't have an opinion about an incident which did not happen. Andrew > >>As to your question about Fritz and Shredder, >>I don't know. I was talking about this specific case, where I believe Jaap acted >>correctly. >> >>I'm off on holiday in a couple of hours, so I won't be able to respond for the >>next week or so. >> >>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.