Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 18:28:06 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 21:26:24, Terry McCracken wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 21:06:24, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 20:27:34, Richard Sutherland wrote: >> >>>The one thing I cant understand through all this, is why ban List now? Whether >>>or not List is derived from Crafty, has obviously not been conclusively >>>determined. With the programmer writing a maths exam, he probably doesn't have >>>time to fully address the issue right at this time, so let his program complete >>>the tournament and then make a determination of the facts. Yes, DQ'ing him after >>>the event is over, might change the end result, but the end result would at >>>least be fair to all involved. If it now transpires that List is completely >>>crafty free, the List programmer has been royally screwed over!!! >> >>In fact, the committee may have been obligated by their own charter to do >>exactly this. The letter at Chessbase states explicitly that: >> >>“Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming >>teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by >>others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their >>application details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of >>others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by >>the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing >>of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to >>the Tournament Director.” >> >>Note that the charter states that banning could take place only >> >>1) after a process of discovery, and >>2) after seeking expert advice >> >>Where is the process of discovery and where is the expert advice? AT THE LEAST, >>the expert advice should have consisted of asking the accuser to provide >>something more than circumstantial evidence, after which the strength of the >>evidence could have been evaluated objectively and a decision made whether to >>request the source, or not, AND THEN experts would have been consulted. >> >>Instead, it appears that the committee violated it's own charter and banned the >>author based on evidence that the committee itself admits is circumstantial, >>without consulting any experts other than the accuser. >> >>Roger > > >Read the letter, they are _not_ in violation of their own charter, that's >nonsense. >Why don't you write them if you're so concerned? >It's easy to talk through your hat. You present no argumentation, simply an assertion of your position. How about some argumentation supporting your position? Then I can get the benefit of your viewpoint on this issue. 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.