Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 20:58:19 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 23:36:52, margolies,marc wrote: >First it is not a 'punishment' because it is a sanction that has a clear remedy. >While you did not personalize your remark about an 'authoritarian frame of >reference,' and I appreciate that, really (that we have civil discourse), it was >a clear characterization of a point of view which I espoused in direct answer to >my remarks. >I suppose if by 'authoritarian', you are suggesting that it is a Tournament >Commitee's responsibility to police the world championship tournament for the >sake of honest performance, then I certainly agree with you. >But were you suggesting something more sinister than that? > > What I meant by "authoritarian" is that the committee apparently chose to put the author of List in a position to default by making him produce his source, something that would make most programmers uncomfortable. Instead, the committee had a more gracious route at its disposal: Asking that the accuser provide additonal support for his evidence, and then by appealing to outside experts to determine whether the supported evidence rose to a level of suspicion sufficient to request the source. Instead, it was important to satisfy the complainant, as the chessbase site states. To me, it goes to good faith. I guess I just don't believe that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to demand an author produce their source code. If you believe circumstantial evidence is sufficient, then you will disagree. 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.