Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:13:18 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 23:39:15, Will Singleton wrote: >I don't quite understand all the hysteria here. It was a very simple decision. >The author failed to comply with one of the rules, and was disqualified. > >If it had been my call, I would not have mentioned anything concerning Crafty or >any of the allegations. I would simply have said that the author had not >complied with a request of the organizer, and was disqualified. End of story. That's quite right IMO and where you should have ended the story. >Note that I have no idea or opinion concerning the clone issue. I would point >out, however, that the author's failure to comply with the rules indicates guilt >of some sort. Naturally that is not right. Clearly any author has the right to choose NOT to show his source code. I have no opinion either way as I know nothing about programming and like everyone else have NO details on the source code of List. But to say that simply choosing not to reveal his source code indicates guilt isn't right as it isn't a rule. It becomes a rule upon the question being raised. . Could be something unrelated to cloning, we just don't know. The >point is, one cannot enter a tournament, agree to the rules, and then break the >rules without sanction. > >I applaud the decision by Mr. Levy and the board. Very courageous and >responsible. They obviously care about their tournament and their organization. While we can applaud the decision we an still all doubt the logic of a) Mentioning Crafty in the notice b) Choosing to ask to see the source code on what has been stated as "circumstantial evidence given to the Tournament Committee by the complainant" c) Not revealing the complainant's name. Sarah.
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.