Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: List is NOT a Crafty clone, ... etc

Author: Antonio Dieguez

Date: 23:58:54 08/21/04

Go up one level in this thread


On August 22, 2004 at 01:46:15, David Dahlem wrote:

>On August 22, 2004 at 00:12:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 21, 2004 at 23:03:25, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>
>>>On August 21, 2004 at 22:49:23, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 21, 2004 at 21:18:52, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I do not believe that everything in the newspaper is correct(I know that there
>>>>>are cases when there is even contradiction between different newspapers) but if
>>>>>a big newspaper publish really bad things against sombody(and I am not talking
>>>>>about every mistake in details about him but about accusation of something that
>>>>>he is not quilty) then I expect the person to do something against the newspaper
>>>>>if the claim of the newspaper is a lie.
>>>>
>>>>Your expectations have no bearing on the innocence or guilt of another person in
>>>>a single instance.
>>>>
>>>>You are using a probabilistic argument which doesn't hold up for a single
>>>>instance. Even if innocent people usually defend themselves more often than not
>>>>(I don't know if this is true or not), that doesn't mean that if one person does
>>>>not defend against one accusation that the person is more likely to be guilty.
>>>>
>>>>If you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads 100 times, the chance that it
>>>>will land on tails the next time is still 50%. Past events don't change the
>>>>probabilities for future events. Whether he chooses to defend himself publicly
>>>>or not doesn't change the chance that he cheated. He either did or he didn't,
>>>>and none of us know the truth. Unless you have some evidence to present, you are
>>>>just speculating.
>>>>
>>>>Every person was raised differently by their parents, has different values,
>>>>different life circumstances, a different culture, and so on. His reason for not
>>>>releasing his source code could be almost anything. Just becuase you would have
>>>>released your source code if you were innocent doesn't mean that everyone else
>>>>would do the same thing if they were innocent. Maybe he just doesn't care what a
>>>>bunch of computer chess nerds think about something they don't know anything
>>>>about :-)
>>>
>>>I was going to reply to Uri- but you actually said it much better and in more
>>>depth - a denial or lack of denial has no bearing on guilt or innocence.  in
>>>fact, how often have we seen denials that later turned to be false.  Also what
>>>"big newspaper publish really bad things " about Reul - none as far I know.
>>>
>>>I find it odd ( and interesting) that someone would actually attribute more
>>>guilt (in their eyes) due to lack of denial.  It runs along the same lines as
>>>attributing guilt to a defendant that refuses to testify in case against
>>>himself.  Clearly applying his own "code of conduct" to others ,where it may
>>>have absolutly no relevancy.
>>
>>Actually, when a defendent does _not_ take the stand in his own defense, that
>>tends to put the jury on notice that there is something in his background that
>>he wants to keep out of the trial.  It does influence the result and defense
>>attorneys only use that tactic when the potential damage is worse than keeping
>>the defendent off the stand and biasing the jury against him.
>>
>>It _is_ strange that he did not respond.  It is contrary to human nature to not
>>respond to accusations when they are really false and damaging...
>
>Contrary to human nature or not, just because a person doesn't respond to
>accusations says absolutely nothing about guilt or innocence. All humans are,
>fortunately, not the same. :-)

right. Fritz reserves the right to be strange and go against human nature.
period.



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.