Author: margolies,marc
Date: 12:58:15 11/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
I am not sure about that, Roger. I do believe the Tournament Committee is NOT on trial and that their actions are NOT outrageous enought to warrant auditing. I also think that by exposing whatever methods they used to (presumably) successfully expose a fraud might weaken those methods because future defective competitors could engineer their products to avoid detection. You are welcome to think otherwise. I would rather give the committee the benefit of the doubt than to a renegade programmer. ps the commitee's methods could be flawed, eg a false positive, but the programmer did not offer his code as counter-evidence for whatever reason. That was the programmer's choice and he is accepting responsibility for that choice now. The methodology of producing source code is established--nothing new here. On November 28, 2003 at 00:56:40, Roger D Davis wrote: >On November 28, 2003 at 00:39:06, margolies,marc wrote: > >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?331302 > >There are certainly different degrees of circumstantial evidence...some strong, >some weak. If the evidence was strong, I would have hoped that the Chessbase >letter would have said so. Then it would have been obvious that there was no >choice but to demand the source. As it is, it's not clear whether the >circumstantial evidence is strong or weak. The only thing that is clear is that >the example given of strong evidence, repeating the same moves as a published >program, isn't applicable to List. > >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.