Author: Jim Bodkins
Date: 12:52:36 11/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 14:02:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. >> >>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. 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. >> >>Will Singleton > > >Perhaps. However, suppose you have a splinter in your finger. One solution >is to cut the finger off. That cures the "problem", but results in a worse >problem. > >I think the way this was handled was improper at best. > >1. Why would someone wait until days before the first round to make >such a complaint? IE when the gunda-1 problem surfaced for the Jakarta >event, it surfaced _weeks_ before the event, so that everyone had time to >discuss it, and everyone knew the resolution before round 1 was ever played. > >2. Why would the ICGA be so draconian as to publicly chastise someone with >very little investigation into the claims? IE who would be better to decide >if something was copied from Crafty, than "Crafty's author"??? > >3. What happens if he proves that he has no crafty code at all? His name >has appeared on ChessBase's web site, the ICGA's web site, in newsgroups, >on message boards. How can that ever be undone? It can't. Which means it >really should be the ICGA's burden to make _certain_ something happened. > >4. The source code issue has _always_ been poorly handled. I think the >best solution is for each competitor to give the ICGA a copy sealed in such >a way that the competitor can tell whether it has been opened or not. The >ICGA takes possession prior to the tournament, and returns it at the end. If >it has been opened, the ICGA has to pay the programmer some substantial damages, >say $100,000, to make it in their best interest to protect the source from >prying eyes. > >5. The ICGA should probably make every participant aware of the source code >rule, and make each participant sign an agreement to provide source in the case >of a protest. If someone won't sign, they don't play. If they do sign, and >don't deliver the source upon demand, they are banned from any ICGA event >forever. > >Make the penalties severe. Both for the "cheater" and the "accuser" to >prevent this sort of reputation damage for all concerned... > >But above-all, don't "knee-jerk". Well said. Most 'successfull' organizations require membership in good standing in order to compete in sancioned events. The key is the phrase 'good standing'. Software held in legal escrow, accessible only under certain legally defined conditions and viewable only be specific individuals under specific circumstances (the presence of the author for example and only after the viewers signing non-disclosure and non-competition agreements) could define a part of 'good standing'. It is possible to deal with this in a reasonable manner. Pursuing allegations made by the annonymous and immune (and we are assuming that actual allegations were in fact made here. We really can only 'trust' under the circumstances that they were) is shakey at best. They 'promised' to act responsibly. That isnt nearly enough given the financial nature of the interests of some involved. They should know that. It doesnt appear they do however. And the issue of reputation that you raised goes beyond monitary interests.
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.