Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 19:51:47 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 22:36:52, Terry McCracken wrote: > >Shutup Roger, what is bogus is the diatribe you wrote in your prior post. I just checked the link you gave for Bob's post. Bob clearly states as the topic sentence to his post that he has nothing significant to add. I'm not sure how nothing significant can support any argument your making. Zero plus zero is zero. The argument I'm making is not based on the actual decision at Graz. My argument is based on the process through which the decision was reached, and the fact that when established rules prove ambiguous, one is perforce obligated to retreat to other frames of reference for guidance. In this case, my feeling is that the committee should have asked Levy to provide further support for his evidence, then asked outside experts to determine whether the evidence, thus supported, aroused a level of suspicion necessary to request the source from the author. Presumably, all the participants started the tournament in good faith, and this would have allowed it to continue in good faith. Ultimately, if List was bogus, the burden of proof would have shifted to the author, who would have been unable to comply, and would have been rightfully banned. 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.