Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:30:26 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 21:28:06, Roger D Davis wrote: >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 There is no arguement, the rules are clear, look them up!!
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.