Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 05:00:03 01/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2004 at 06:23:36, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On January 27, 2004 at 03:50:08, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>Comments? Ideas? Shrieking epitaphs? > >Unless I've missed a posting here presenting actual evidence of foul play by >Reul, I consider that presumption of innocence is a better approach. I very much adhere to the "guilty unless proven" principle. And I would _never_ point fingers at new engines and claim it's a clone and what not. But the fact that not only _many_ filenames but also quite a lot of (nontrivial) symbol names in the engine (which can be obtained with the Unix-command 'strings' vor example) together with the fact that he didn't react _at all_ to the reasonable suggestions from the responsibles in Graz (like meet Dr. A. Heinz a week later etc) are _IMHO_ some basis to be at least sceptical. If I say that 'List is a non-engine' for me, that doesn't mean I say he's guilty. (I would need clear evidence for that, and what I know so far is not enough proof IMHO) It means that I treat List as if it's non-existant at all. (skipped his thoughts on what would happen if List would play in an 'official' tournament again - let's say CCT6 ;) Sargon
This page took 0.02 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.