Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 14:55:19 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 "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 page took 0.01 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.