Author: Sally Weltrop
Date: 17:36:54 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 20:32:02, Roger D Davis wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 20:22:26, Martin Andersen wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 20:05:22, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >> >>Cut. >> >>You didn't read carefully enough: >>"Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of >>others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same)." >> >>Pay close attention to (...). >> >>Yes they claim to have some circumstantial evidence, if >>they had clear evidence they didn't need to ask for the source-code, but >>just ban him at once. >>It's very difficult, maybe impossible to prove that LIST is a Crafty clone >>without having the source-code. >> >>It would be silly if we had a tournament where half of the programmes where >>Crafty clones, but they couldn't be banned because nobody could prove it. >>It's all in the Tournament rules: We are in doubt, show us the code. >> >>Martin. > >No no no...this has nothing to do with tournaments consisting of 50% crafty >clones, because constructs such as GOOD FAITH come into play. Good faith means >that you begin with the assumption that each participant is fundamentally >honest, if not by deed, then at least by intention. > >My point is subtle, and it's not necessarily stipulated to be general to all >cases, but I do believe it applies here: There was, as the Chessbase letter >clearly states, only circumstantial evidence. If there was circumstantial >evidence, then there was necessarily reasonable doubt. And if there was >reasonable doubt, then---given that the reputation of the author is at >stake---the burden of proof falls to the accuser, who must provide something >which is more than circumstantial in order to cause the committee to request the >source. > >In this case, the committee missed a step...they failed to recognize the >balance, and instead explicitly stated that part of their goal was to satisfy >the complainant. That put the burden of proof on solely on the author, who >declined to participate, and justifiably so. another good point. > >Roger
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.