Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 17:36:58 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 20:34:50, Sally Weltrop wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 20:05:22, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>>If you read this carefully, you'll note that the rules state that "PROGRAMS >>WHICH ARE DISCOVERED TO BE CLOSE DERIVATIVES OF OTHERS...MAY BE DECLARED >>INVALID." >> >>Note that the wording is explicit...only those which are DISCOVERED should be >>declared invalid. It doesn't say that "PROGRAMS AGAINST WHICH CIRCUMSTANTIAL >>CLAIMS ARE LAUNCHED MAY BE DECLARED INVALID." >> >>The process of discovery was violated because the accuser was never asked to >>provide anything more than circumstantial evidence. The letter at chessbase >>makes it clear that the committee apparently felt some obligation to the >>accuser: >> >>"In order to...to provide the complainant with an answer..." >> >>So the committee felt it had an obligation to satisfy the complainant, when in >>fact, the obligation of the committee was to request solid evidence from the >>complainant, not circumstantial evidence. You can't DISCOVER A PROGRAM TO BE A >>CLOSE DERIVATIVE base on circumstantial evidence, and you can't disqualify such >>a program, based on the charter. The burden of proof was put on the author, who >>apparently thought it was BS, and he walked. >> >>My theory, therefore, that the accuser has some special relationship with the >>committee members. Who is the accuser to have such a special relationship? >> >>Roger > >Roger, >U brought up a good point. It makes sense to me. How can "List" be discovered >when no clear proof has been forwarded. This makes ICGA look a little shaky and >I think they made a big mistake. > > Why did they let "List" play in the first place? > > Why didn't they just allow "List" to finish the tournament and settle it >afterwards considering the circumstances? Meet the programmer in person AND with >his supervision let them look at the source code. > >The whole situation kind of smells here and it isn't "List" I have to agree. There were other options that the committee never considered. 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.