Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 16:41:03 11/27/03
Since throwing an author out in the middle of a tournament is a pretty major step that casts aspersions on the character of the author, it seems to me that the burden of proof ought not be on the author, who is apparently guilty until proven innocent. Strangely, however, even the letter on the chessbase site at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1330 states that "The complaint is supported by circumstantial evidence given to the Tournament Committee by the complainant." In other words, THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE. In other words, the author was thrown out of the tournament based on nothing stronger than CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. When the author was asked, he stated that "When the Tournament Committee first asked Mr Reul about this matter by electronic communication on November 24th, Mr Reul stated that there was no connection whatsoever between the two programs." So the author was accused and he denied any connection. Is the burden of proof to remain on the author, in spite of the fact that evidence is circumstantial, and is admitted publically to be circumstantial???? Seems to me that the burden of proof should go back to the accuser...otherwise, anyone could land anyone else in hot water very quickly. So the chessbase letter then says, "In order to investigate this matter in a proper manner and to provide the complainant with an answer, the members of the Tournament Committee needed to convince themselves of the precise relation between the two programs, if any." The letter goes on to state that, "On November 24th the Tournament Committee therefore officially requested Mr Reul to allow them to inspect his source code. " In other words, the necessary step of asking the accuser to provide something more than circumstantial was never undertaken. The burden was put on the author to prove his innocence. Guilty until proven innocent. This is not how things are done... Would you provide your source code under such circumstances? How could you have good faith in a tournament committee that has violated due process and shown no good faith in you? Roger
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.